SR-7-A (25)
7--14
11\. t,.! ~ 1 " :- .~'"'"
y r r~ .!......-- . -.i 114'
LUTM:PB:DKW:SMW:AHILL.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: January 14, 1992
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of an
Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a two
story, six unit residential condominium with two
inclusionary rental units on an 8,360 square foot
parcel in the R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential)
District.
Address:
Applicant:
1017-1019 Hill street
Grant Wada
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council approve the appeal with
the project redesign as proposed and an increase in un excavated
area for Conditional Use Permit 91-022 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 50656 for a two story, eight unit residential project
including six condominium units and two inclusionary rental units
at 1017-1019 Hill street.
The Planning Commission denied CUP
91-022 and VTTM 50656.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission denied CUP 91-022 and VTTM 50656 on
November 6, 1991 with a vote of 4-1 (Attachment A). The
application was denied based upon a finding that placement of the
proposed structure on the site is not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and that the proposed structure is not
7--A-
- 1 -
YIP : ' · 31
similar in massing, height or placement to the neighboring
structures.
Project Chronology
The project application was submitted on April 26, 1991 and
deemed complete on May 28, 1991. The applicant had met with
project neighbors on April 16, 1991, May 2, 1991, May 13, 1991
and May 22, 1991. After discussions with staff, the applicant
submitted a variance application for parcel coverage and number
of parking spaces on July 15, 1991. The applicant met again with
project neighbors on July 22, 1991 and August 5, 1991. The
application was scheduled for the August 7, 1991 Planning
Commission hearing. The applicant and project neighbors met
again on August 29, 1991 due to insufficient site noticing, the
project was continued to the hearing of September 7, 1991. At
that time, the project was continued at the applicant's request
for project redesign. Staff met with project neighbors on two
occasions in October to discuss the project plans. The Planning
commission denied the project application for CUP 91-022 and VTTM
50656 on November 6, 1991.
Required Notification and Community Meetings
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9131. 5, notice of the City
Council meeting was mailed to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius
of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the City council meeting. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment D.
- 2 -
As noted above, Seven neighborhood meetings were held prior to
the Planning Commission hearing of November 6, 1991 in which the
applicant's representative and architect, project neighbors, and
a member of the sunset Park Association of Neighbors were present
(Attachment C, See letter dated 9/16/91) . A Planning
commissioner and a City council member were also present at a
neighborhood meeting held on May 2, 1991. Staff met with two
project neighbors and a representative of the Friends of Sunset
Park to discuss the project plans several weeks before the
November 6, 1991 hearing. The neighbors had specific questions
about the loft size calculation, total size of inclusionary
rental uni ts and rooms and a suggestion for substitution of
proposed plant material for an existing vine along the west
elevation.
ANALYSIS
At the applicant's request, the proj ect was continued by the
Planning Commission at the September 7, 1991 hearing for project
redesign to comply with the code standard for parcel coverage.
Previously, the applicant had been requesting a lot coverage
variance to help accomodate Proposition R and density bonus units
on the site. The Commission also suggested that the applicant
meet with project neighbors to discuss and address their concerns
about the project.
The proposed two story, eight unit project consists of six, two
story condominiums and two, two-story inclusionary rental units
with loft levels and roof decks. Seventeen parking spaces are
- 3 -
provided in a subterranean garage with a guest space within the
rear yard setback as required by code. Eight units are
permitted using the 25% state density bonus. The project
proposal, including inclusionary unit sizes and number of
bedrooms, complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning
ordinance.
In several meetings with project neighbors and a representative
of the Friends of Sunset Park, the applicant discussed and
attempted to address the neighbors' concerns. The specific
concerns include project massing, overall height, ventilation,
light, privacy from roof decks, roof design, side yard planting
and screening, east elevation articulation and amount of front
yard landscaping. The proj ect was redesigned several times to
attempt to address the neighbors' concerns, as well as to address
specific code compliance, including number of parking spaces,
parcel coverage, loft sizes and total required area of
inclusionary units. Staff recommended conditions of approval for
the November 6, 1991 hearing which directed the Architectural
Review Board to review the articulation, massing, compatibility
and transition of the project with adjacent and neighboring
structures (Attachment C). Staff also recommended a condition to
the Commission that inclusionary Unit D be redesigned with rooms
sizes comparable to that of inclusionary unit c.
Appeal
The applicant's appeal of the commission'S decision is based on
the compliance of the proposal with all applicable zoning
- 4 -
regulations, including the provision of required on-site
inclusionary rental units. Prior to the November 6, 1991 hearing
before the Planning Commission, the applicant redesigned specific
aspects of the proj ect to comply with code requirements and to
address project neighbor concerns. The total number of parking
spaces was increased to the required 18 total, parcel coverage
was reduced from 60% to the maximum 50% permitted, roof decks
were setback an additional 3' along each elevation, loft sizes
were reduced to no more than 33 1/3% of the rooms below and
inclusionary unit sizes were increased to the minimum code
requirements.
The applicant also redesigned the project to orient inclusionary
unit entrances along the west elevation as requested by project
neighbors (Attachment F). Front elevation massing was reduced
slightly along the second floor and roof deck level and the rear
yard setback was increased from 51 to 12'10".
Several Commissioners were concerned with the compatibility of
the project design with existing adjacent and neighboring
residential structures. Commissioner Nelson had specific
concerns about subterranean storage areas (Attachment F) and the
lack of mature landscaping.
In general, staff analysis indicates that the project scale is
larger than adjacent and neighboring structures. Project
neighbors completed a survey of structure height within the
vicinity, which indicated that there is not an existing building
of similar height in the immediate vicinity (Attachment C, See
- 5 -
letter dated 10/27/91). In light of the Planning Commission's
determination of the incompatibility of the design with the
neighborhood, the Council could follow the Commission's action
and deny the appeal. However, in that the project complies with
all of the City I s stated development standards, and provides
needed affordable housing consistent with the requirements of
Proposition R, and subsequent to The Planning commission action,
additional design changes have been made, approval of the revised
design, rather than outright denial, would appear to staff to be
a more appropriate action.
Design changes made subsequent to Planning Commission action
include a substantial reduction in loft structure massing and
bulk, although the basic project concept is consistant with the
design reviewed by the Commission (See Attachment E, sheets A-4 &
A-5). The loft structure has been reduced to approximately 36%
of the total roof area according to the applicant's calculations.
The visual impact of the loft structure is significantly reduced
along the east (front) and south (side) building elevations. The
front elevation has been redesigned with the purpose of reducing
the vertical emphasis (sheet A-5). Staff feels that the
condition directing ARB to review the front building elevation
continues to be relevant to the compatibility of the project
design (condition #6).
The total unit size of inclusionary unit D was increased from 851
square feet to 874 square feet, comparable to the total unit size
of unit C (see Attachment G, sheets A-3 & A-4). The room size of
bedroom #2 for unit C is not comparable with that of unit C
- 6 -
(sheet A-3 & A-4). Condition #41 requires that room size
dimensions comparable with unit C be provided for unit C.
In addition to these changes, staff is proposing a condition that
the underground storage area in the front yard setback area be
eliminated, providing an un excavated area equal to 50% of the
front yard (condition #43). Staff's understanding is that, the
applicant is willing to accept this condition. The conditions of
approval would direct the ARB review to address these issues and
ensure that the resulting design is compatible with the
neighborhood (#6).
Conclusion
CUP 91-022 and VTTM 50656 received a denial on November 6, 1991
by the Planning commission. The denial was based mainly on a
conclusion of incompatibility of the project with the surrounding
neighborhood and the dissimilar massing, height and placement of
the proposed structure. The applicant appealed the decision
contending the proposal meets all applicable zoning standards.
staff recommends approval of the appeal since the project meets
all stated requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and since
subsequent to the Commission action, the applicant has provided
design changes which reduce the bulk and massing of the loft
level to approximately 36% of the total roof area, and has
redesigned the front elevation to de-emphasize the vertical
massing. staff is recommending a condition to eliminate the
underground storage area and a requirement that 50% of the front
yard setback area be unexcavated, for the Architectural Review
- 7 -
Board to specifically address project design and project
landscaping and for redesign of inclusionary unit C to be
comparable with inclusionary unit D. (See conditions ~6, 41, 44)
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMM:ENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council approve the
appeal and approve CUP 91-022 and VTTM 50656 for a two story, six
unit condominium with two inclusionary rental units at 1017-1019
Hill street with the following findings and conditions.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov~s~on for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, in that it conforms to the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for the R2 district.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development, in that it is a standard lot, able to accomo-
date the proposed structure while providing required set-
backs, lot coverage limitations and required parking on-
site.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development, in that it is a parcel of 8,360 sq. ft. in
the R2 zone and can accomodate 8 units with the use of the
state density bonus.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project is an urban in-fill
development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious pUblic health problems, in that all
utilities are available.
- 8 -
6. The design of the sUbdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the pUblic
at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision, in that the City Engineer has
approved the tentative tract map and taken into account
the required easements and dedications.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the IIcity of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that all required setbacks,
lot coverage, building height and parking requirements are
met and in that the massing and bulk of the loft level has
been significantly reduced at the south and east building
elevations resulting in an increased line-of-sight from
the ground level to the loft level, reducing the visual
impact of the loft structure.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that this parcel is surrounded on four
sides by multi-family residential development.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the slope is not exces-
sive, all parking can be provided on-site, and adequate
open space is provided and an unexcavated area equal to
50% of the 201 front yard setback is required.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that the two existing multi-family
structures are proposed to be demolished and a multi-
family residence including six residential condominiums
and two inclusionary rental units are proposed.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the massing and bulk of the loft level has been signifi-
cantly reduced at the south and east building elevations
resulting in an increased line-of-sight from ground level
to the loft level, reducing the visual impact of the loft
structure.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that all utilities are available to the site.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is sufficiently served by an existing
street.
- 9 -
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that buildings in the area are
one and two story single and multi-family structures and
the massing and bulk of the loft level has been signifi-
cantly reduced at the south and east building elevations
resulting in an increased line-of-sight from ground level
to the loft level, reducing the visual impact of the loft
structure.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the project site
is located in a multiple residential land use element dis-
trict and complies with the applicable regulations.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that all public utilities are available, and required
building code requirements will be enforced in the con-
struction of the building.
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, section 9050
and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, section
9055 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance, in that these Subchapters are not
applicable to new condominium developments.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area
is zoned for mUlti-family residential construction, and
the subject proposal conforms in height and density to the
R2 zoning.
- 10 -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated January 6, 1992 a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the city
Planning Division. project development shall be consis-
tent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in
these conditions of approval.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the city of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architec-
tural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback im-
pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac-
cessibility requirements.
6. The Architectural Review Board shall carefully review the
project design to ensure that the building provides an
adequate transition from neighboring one and two story
structures and that building articulation shall de-
emphasize the vertical building design. Particular atten-
tion shall be paid to the design of the front elevation.
7. The existing mature trees: one, 10" diameter & one, 14"
diameter Eucalyptus and 1211 diameter Ficus elasticus shall
be preserved in their present location on site, relocated
to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen
trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review
Board.
8. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall en-
sure that at least 50% of the required front yard setback
- 11 -
and 50% of the unexcavated side yard setback shall be ade-
quately landscaped in addition to other required
landscaping.
9. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
10. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele-
ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing: and landscaping.
11. Construction period signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
12. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping Standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
13. Side yard landscaping shall be incorporated in the east
elevation design to provide screening and design transi-
tion to adjacent structures.
14. Side yard landscaping for the west elevation shall include
the substitution of a drought-tolerant flowering hedge for
the proposed creeping fig (Ficus pumila).
15. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.13-9040.15.
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board
in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and
area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize
noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Un-
less otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board,
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least
five feet from the edge of the roof.
16. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the re-
quired front or street side yard setback areas. The Ar-
chitectural Review Board in its review shall pay particu-
lar attention to the location and screening of such
meters.
Fees
17. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot,
- 12 -
per and subject to the prov~s~ons of section 6670 et seg.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
18. until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
19. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
(CCS).
20. Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained
around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept
clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
21. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
22. No demolition of buildings or structures built prior to
1930 shall be permitted until the end of a 30-day review
period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether an
application for landmark designation shall be filed. If
an application for landmark designation is filed, no de-
molition shall be approved for 90 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition, or upon the deter-
mination by the Landmarks Commission that the application
for landmark designation does not merit formal consider-
ation, whichever is sooner.
Construction
23 . Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
24. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
- 13 -
General services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
25. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
26. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
27. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the applicant for approval by the Department of General
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. The ap-
proved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the
duration of the project construction and shall be produced
upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify
the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business
license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as
well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how de-
molition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erec-
tion/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public
street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in
conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent
and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe
the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend
under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the na-
ture and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated contruction-
related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of
hauling and parking location; 9) specify the nature and
extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) state whether any
construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed; 11) Describe any proposed contruction noise
mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-period
security measures including any fencing, lighting, and
security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14)
Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall
minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a
designated on-site construction manager.
28. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis-
tent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall
identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or
applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign
shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
- 14 -
29. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all times during con-
struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
30. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
31. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
32. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
33. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parking is supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance with the district's limits on number of stories
can be maintained.
34. No fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard
setback, inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and
fencing or railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height
of 42" above actual grade of the property.
35. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to
the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is
located in the subterranean garage, the security gate
shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which
will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular ac-
cess to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The
security gate shall receive approval of the Police and
Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
Validity of Permits
36. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
- 15 -
37. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
statement of Official Action, project applicant shall
sign and return a copy of the statement of Official Action
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
38. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination, or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit
shall expire two years from the permit's effective date,
unless a building permit has been issued for the project
prior to the expiration date.
39. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the proj-
ect, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and
nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and
shall remain in place until a building permit is issued
for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when
a building permit is issued for the project or upon ex-
piration of the Conditional Use Permit.
Inclusionary Unit Condition
40. The developer shall covenant and agree with the City of
Santa Monica to the specific terms, conditions and
restrictions upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the
subject property, which terms, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
Office as a part of the deed of the property to ensure
that two affordable units is provided and maintained over
time and through subsequent sales of the property. An
inclusionary requirement of at least thirty percent of the
total number of units, excluding any density bonus units
under state Government Code Section 65915, shall be perma-
nently affordable to and occupied by low and moderate in-
come households of which at least fifty percent (50%)
shall be affordable to households not exceeding sixty per-
cent of the (HUD) Los Angeles County median income, with
the balance of the inclusionary units affordable to house-
holds with incomes not exceeding 100% of the (RUD) Los
Angeles County median income, expending not over 30% of
monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the Hous-
ing Division of the Department of Community and Economic
Development. Such restrictions shall be effective for the
lifetime of the project.
- 16 -
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the
unit(s) available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibili-
ties of the City of Santa Monica to prepare application
forms for potential tenants, establish criteria for
qualifications, and monitor compliance with the provisions
of the agreement.
Owner shall provide the City Planning Division with a con-
formed copy of the recorded agreement prior to approval of
the Final Map.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of the Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica. Developer shall satisfy
the obligations created by this Agreement by demonstrating
to the Director of Planning compliance with Ordinance 1577
(CCS), which provides implementation standards for this
program.
Special Conditions
41. Inclusionary unit D shall be redesigned to incorporate
room sizes of comparable dimensions with inclusionary unit
c. Plans shall return to staff for approval with square
footage calculations prior to ARB review.
42. An additional one foot setback from the east building edge
shall be provided for roof decks to ensure a minimum 10
foot setback prior to Architectural Review Board review.
43. Prior to ARB review, the subterranean portion of the
project shall be redesigned to eliminate the storage area
in the front yard setback, and provide not less than 50%
of the front yard setback as unexcavated area.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer
shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer and approved by the City Engineer.
2. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site im-
provements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared
and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and sections 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the
final map shall be presented to the city of Santa Monica
for approval. No building permit for the project will be
- 17 -
granted until such time as the final map is approved by
the Santa Monica City council.
4. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica En-
gineering Division for a final map, applicant shall pro-
vide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action.
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R1s
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
CC & R' s shall contain a non-discrimination clause as
presented in Section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con-
dominiums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec-
tion 9122E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium
Tax of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provi-
sions of Section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of
sections 9330 through 9338 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid
prior to scheduling of the Final Map for city Council
approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final parcel map shall conform to the provisions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act.
9. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be
provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Re-
corder prior to issuance of any building permit for a con-
dominium project pursuant to Government Code section
66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a
copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the
required copies of the map are submitted.
10. A copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the Plan-
ning and Zoning Division before issuance of a Building
permit.
11. Pursuant to section 9366 (SMMC) , if the subdivider or any
interested person disagrees with any action by the
Planning Commission with respect to the tentative map, an
appeal or complaint may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be filed after a ten
day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Susan White, Assistant Planner
- 18 -
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments
A. statement of Official Action dated 11/6/91.
B. Appeal form dated 11/12/91.
C. Planning Commission staff report dated 11/6/91.
D. Official Notice of Public Hearing
E. Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations
s~
PC/AHILL
01/08/92
- 19 -
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit 91-022,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50656
LOCATION: 1017-1019 Hill street
APPLICANT: Taka Uemura & Grant Wada
CASE PLANNER: Susan White, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the con-
struction of a 2 story, 30', 6 unit residen-
tial condominium with 2 inclusionary rental
units on a 8,360 square foot parcel in the R2
(Low Density Multiple Residential) District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
11(6(91
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
X Denied.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED:
11/20/91
11/16/91
Case Conditional Use Permit 91-022
Case Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50656
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provision for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, in that it conforms to the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for the R2 district.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development, in that it is a standard lot, able to accomo-
date the proposed structure while providing required set-
backs, lot coverage limitations and required parking on-
site.
- 1 -
0J
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development, in that it is a parcel of 8,360 sq. ft. in
the R2 zone and can accomodate 6 condominium units and 2
additional inclusionary rental units with the use of the
25% state density bonus.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project is an urban in-fill
development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious public health problems, in that all
utilities are available.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision, in that the City Engineer has
approved the tentative tract map and taken into account
the required easements and dedications.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance II , in that all required setbacks,
lot coverage, building height, parking requirements and
minimum inclusionary rental unit size and number of bed-
rooms are met.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that this parcel is surrounded on four
sides by multi-family residential development.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the slope is not exces-
sive, all parking can be provided on-site, and adequate
code required open space is provided.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that the two existing multi-family
structures are proposed to be demolished.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the use consists of eight mUlti-family residential units
in the R2 district.
- 2 -
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that all utilities are available to the site.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is sufficiently served by an existing
street.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to
the surrounding neighborhood, in that existing buildings
in the area are one and two story single and mUlti-family
structures of which the proposal is not similar in mass-
ing, height or placement including in particular, the
neighboring one story single family structure to the west
and the 2 story, 24 I high mUlti-family structure to the
east.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the project site
is located in a multiple residential land use element dis-
trict and complies with the applicable regulations.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that the use consists of eight mUlti-family residential
units in the R2 district.
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050
and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, section
9055 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance, in that these Subchapters are not
applicable to new condominium developments.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area
is zoned for mUlti-family residential construction, and
the subject proposal conforms in height and density to the
R2 zoning.
VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Rosenstein
Gilpin, Morales, Nelson, Polhemus
Mechur, Pyne
- 3 -
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to
Municipal Code section 1400.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Monica.
signature
date
Ralph Mechur, Chairperson
Please Print Name and Title
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and
acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name and Title
PC/st022
SMW
- 4 -
..... --
e
Cay of
Santa Monica
Comm umty and EconomiC Development Department
PlannIng and Zonl"<l Division
(213) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
.
~~i1AIQc.;k{< ,-\
"-~;
. "-I--
. I T - I : . .! I r .' ...1. I i ~~
...--,"\.1 '.........:.... =...!.. I I ~ ...r.--v .~
FEE: $100.00
~A9\'~ C~_J
- 9 1 F t- ;:-{) &:\ ;:>
____ _ __Date EiIed- l \ ~1'1.. \ ~ \
ReceIVed by p~~
ReceIpt No E. ~ ., J:; ~O "L.
/
Name ~7 tvl1DA
Address I (/ r'-l/~;;-f 57 .p ~
Contact perSon( ~ &J
Please descnbe the project and declSlOll to be appealed 't
I ,v'(~L 1/1->/ N'b ?c.' Y ~ - o{2.
I
Phone ?7 'f . S% f?
UN:'7 7OyJ;v;-foH~ !?:t-vJpcr,
:2.. - A*,t:-fJ,+pL--E ~"PL t/rv Irs
Case Number
. , 7 --. -7 -dl ; I .", _.~
Adaress - - c/-r.: ,f."..f-rv!- ~ ,r,.
Applicant I 7P ~ [-&-uU~/
Onglnal hearing date 3 (-; /11 /
Onglnal action C ,,{/I''"''I AI ;J:E--D rc. 4-[L ~J 7<..' (~"F:YL.../J f ,A7'>/'Y7/ ....../"',.4(- /vll.r::.. I/~,/ /II p-ri'-rl-f'~')r-:.s
,
Please state the specific reason(s) for the apPeal rL-A-/V/V1 tfVt~ U::/-/H JS'>/O />/ L44k e#A?v' ,I? ~PH
1'1.&er1rI/::?- ( p,0 7t/-'1 I?Nft f'-oShVT) h;1}S "'J\.<;..J6L~ ".N kr;:6"'~
~ //
(7-{JJ~T j:y2-S.t8P tJ/v' ~-LNS. 1I/,~2PS;S&-lJ "pN;'" .A>V.y..6-P~ /N
;VtfNe;2c)//5,. r2fiPft96..A/5 7>>E- 1f~~J&.4- (}JNrl..-i.6-5 tf?7U..t-Y'
/f/':7;-1- ~t.L-- A/Jl'Y/(~~I3L-6- ~IIINL~ kl/J?.ELJ/o./-GS ~i'7;r~r.- 1\'J!..~
r- =--11
"\
--..
Date
II f'5/fI
~
@)
SIQnature
\..
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 6, 1991
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 91-022,
vesting Tentative Tract Map 50656
Address:
Applicant:
1017-1019 Hill street
Taka Uemura
SUMMARY
Action: Application for a conditional Use Permit and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a two story, six
unit residential condominium with two inclusionary rental units
on an 8,400 square foot parcel in the R2 (Low Density Multiple
Residential) District.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Permit streamlining Expiration Date: November 28, 1991
The applicant has agreed to one 90 day extension as permitted by
municipal code for action by the Planning Commission on cup 91-
022.
Subdivision Action Deadline: July 17, 1991
The applicant has agreed to waive the subdivision deadline for
action by the Planning Commission on VTTM 50656.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is an 8,360 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Hill street between Lincoln Boulevard and Eleventh
street having a frontage of 50 feet. Surrounding uses consist of
2 story apartment buildings (R2) to the north, south and east and
two, 1 story single family dwellings (R2) to the west. Existing
on-si te uses include two single family structures. There are
eight (two, 4", one, 7", two, 10", two, 12", & one, 14" diameter)
mature trees on the site.
Zoning District: R2
- 1 -
/~
(i>
Land Use District: Low Density Multiple Residential
Parcel Area:
50' x 168' (irregular) = 8,360 sq. ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is to remove two Rent Control exempt units with an
owner-occupied exemption and construct a 2 story structure of
eight condominiums over a 17 space subterranean garage accessed
from the alley (Hill Place North). One of two required guest
parking spaces is provided wi thin the rear yard setback area.
Seven units provide two levels and one unit provides one level.
Each unit provides a dining room, kitchen, living room, two bed-
rooms, two bathrooms and a loft level with roof deck.
~ruNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
with the exception of total loft areas and total unit sizes for
units C and D, the proposed project is consistent with the
Municipal Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown
in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
Project is categorically exempt per the City of Santa Monica
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Class 3 (2).
RENT CONTROL STATUS
An owner-occupied exemption was granted for the two (2) on-site
single family units. The property owner has filed a Declaration
of Intent to Maintain Residency with the Rent Control Board.
FEES
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax
of $200 per unit and a Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per
saleable unit for a total tax of $7,600.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission continued the project at the August 7,
1991 hearing at the applicant's request. The purpose was to re-
design the project to conform to the 50% maximum parcel coverage
requirement. The Commission also urged the applicant to meet
with neighbors to discuss the project design. project neighbors
submitted a petition discussing their concerns with the design,
which included neighborhood incompatibility, inequity of the in-
clusionary rental units' design, parking impact, reduction in
quality of life and aesthetic considerations (Attachment D).
Staff has proposed conditions of approval to address neighborhood
compatibility and aesthetics.
The applicant and project neighbors have had seven meetings in-
cluding meetings with members of the Sunset Park Association of
Neighbors, one meeting where a City Council and Planning Commis-
sion member were present, and one meeting with a representative
of the Friends of Sunset Park (Attachment E). Contact with
- 2 -
steven Harris, the project neighbor to the west, indicates that
the neighbors' concerns include what some neighbors view as the
intrusive, massive nature of the proposed structure as well as
the overall height and increased density in the area. Project
neighbors are concerned that the building design is not com-
patible with the existing neighborhood as there is not a building
of similar height and mass located on the block. other concerns
include lack of ventilation, light, privacy from roof decks, roof
design, sideyard planting and screening, east elevation articula-
tion, and ma turi ty of front yard landscaping. The proj ect re-
design addressed several of the neighbors' concerns. The front
elevation of the building has been stepped back, the inclusionary
unit entrances are now oriented towards the west elevation, simi-
lar to other units, and the rear yard setback has been increased
from 5' to 1211011.
staff met with two project neighbors and a representative of the
Friends of Sunset Park on October 8, 1991. Project neighbors
expressed a concern about the size of loft areas in relation to
the areas of rooms below. Specifically, they questioned the ex-
clusion of landing areas for lofts and the inclusion of stair
landings of rooms below for total square footage calculation of
the 33 1/3% maximum loft area. Roof deck setbacks from each side
yard were also a concern. Project neighbors also pointed out
that room sizes of inclusionary rental unit, D, are very small.
Staff met with the project architect on October 17, 1991 to dis-
cuss total loft areas and roof deck setbacks and again on October
24, 1991. A reduction in all unit loft sizes to comply with code
standards were incorporated into the proj ect plans. Roof deck
setbacks from the side yards were also delineated on the site
plan.
The Friends of Sunset Park submitted survey results for existing
residential housing in the R2 area bounded by Hill Street, Ash-
land Avenue, and pier street between Lincoln Boulevard and 11th
Street (Attachment H). The attached letter states that 1I...0CCU-
pied dwelling unit density on Hill St. is over 250% more than
pier st., and over 100% more than Ashland Ave. II The Board of
Directors of the Friends of Sunset Park, in general, feel that
the project is too massive and is out of character with the
neighborhood, and does not support the 1017-19 Hill Street
project.
There are eight existing mature trees on-site. These include
one, 14" diameter and one, 10" diameter Eucalyptus tree, and one,
1211 diameter base twin trunk rubber tree (Ficus elasticus).
Unidentified specimens include two, 411, one, 711, and one, 10"
diameter trees. The on-site trees are not proposed to be main-
tained or relocated on-site. One, 7" diameter existing parkway
tree is not proposed to be removed for the project.
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 2 story, six
unit condominium with two inclusionary rental units over a seven-
teen space subterranean garage. One uncovered guest parking
space is provided within the rear yard setback. Two story multi-
- 3 -
family structures exist to the north, south and east. Two, 1
story single family structures exist to the west. The applicant
is proposing a structure which is 30' in height from an average
natural grade of approximately 87.7'.
The project provides two inclusionary rental units required per
Ordinance 1577 (Proposition R). A total of eight units are per-
mitted by using the 25% state Density Bonus.
ANALYSIS
Project Design
Units A and AI provide dining room, kitchen, one bedroom and
bathroom on the first floor and one bedroom, one bathroom and
living room on the second floor. The two center units provide
two bedrooms and one and one half bathrooms on the first floor
and dining room, living room, kitchen and one half bathroom on
the second floor. unit C provides living room, dining room, and
kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms and two bathrooms on
the second floor. Unit D provides one bedroom, kitchen and
dining room and one bathroom on the first floor, a living room,
one bedroom and one bathroom on the second floor, and a loft
level with roof deck. Each project unit provides a loft level
and roof deck with utility spaces accessible from the deck area.
Loft areas for each of the eight units do not exceed 33 1/3% of
the room below nor do they exceed 99 square feet in area (a land-
ing area is excluded).
The inclusionary rental units, C and D, are approximately 874 and
851 square feet respectively with two bedrooms each. This com-
plies with section 9423 (d) of the Municipal Code that requires
that inclusionary units provide at least the same number of bed-
rooms as the average unit in the project with a minimum of 850
square feet for a two bedroom unit. The unit entrances are ori-
ented towards the west elevation side yard and similar open
spaces/patios are provided along the east elevation. All other
amenities are provided similar to the condominium units including
two bedrooms, bathrooms and other living spaces. The size of
individual rooms for unit D, however, are not comparable. Proj-
ect neighbors expressed a concern about this unit and feel that
the bedrooms, kitchen and living room areas are not adequate in
size. staff is recommending the following condition concerning
the room sizes of Unit D.
41. Inclusionary unit D shall be redesigned to incorporate
room sizes of comparable dimensions with inclusionary unit
c. Plans shall return to staff for approval with square
footage calculations prior to ARB review.
Proposed parcel coverage is 4,202 square feet or 50% of the par-
cel as permitted. The minimum required side yard setback is 7'.
One required 4' unexcavated side yard setback is provided along
the west side property line. No portion of the 20' front yard
setback is provided as unexcavated area for the subterranean
- 4 -
garage. This project would not be sUbject to the pending or-
dinance requiring that 50% of the front yard be unexcavated.
Project roof decks are setback 91 from the east and 10' from the
west side property lines. staff recommends the following
condition:
42. An additional 1 foot setback from the east building edge
shall be provided for roof decks to ensure a minimum 10
foot setback prior to Architectural Review Board review.
Gas and electric meters and the trash enclosure are located
wi thin the rear yard setback. Two garage vents are located
within the front yard setback but do not extend above grade. The
trash enclosure is screened with a 61 opaque wall and gate as
required by code.
Bay window projections along the west and east elevations extend
IS" as permitted by code into the side yard setbacks. A series
of roof level deck planters project 1St! into side yard setbacks
as permitted by code. An 18" and 30" architectural projection
extends into the front yard setback as permitted by code.
Project Landscaping
Fifty percent of the unexcavated side yard setback is landscaped
as required by code. Proposed side yard landscaping includes a
succession of pavers set in decomposed granite and groundcover.
Fifteen gallon "Willows" and five gallon star jasmine plants are
proposed between each side yard unit entrance. No side yard
landscaping is proposed for the east elevation, thus providing no
opportunity for screening. staff recommends the following
condition:
13. Side yard landscaping shall be incorporated in the east
elevation design to provide screening and design transi-
tion to adjacent structures.
The adjacent neighbor to the west is concerned about the removal
of the honeysuckle hedge which provides screening along the ex-
isting property line fence (Attachment G). This neighbor sug-
gests that the proposed creeping fig (Ficus Pumita) be replaced
with a flowering hedge similar to the honeysuckle. Staff recom-
mends the following condition:
14. Side yard landscaping for the west elevation shall include
the substitution of a drought-tolerant flowering hedge for
the proposed creeping vine (Ficus pumila) .
Front yard landscaping is provided for at least 50% of the front
yard setback as required by code. Proposed are a series of three
retaining walls increasing in height from lS" to 3.5' featuring
ceanothus ground cover and several specimen trees. Also incuded
\.,rithin the front setback are five large boulders. Decomposed
granite ground cover and a strip of plant ground covers is pro-
posed for the parkway. The existing street tree is not proposed
- 5 -
to be removed for the project. staff has recommended the stan-
dard condition that, unless otherwise approved by the Recreation
and Parks Department and the Planning Division, at the time of
demolition, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242 (CCS).
Parking and Circulation
A total of eighteen parking spaces are required (2 spaces per 2
bedroom unit + 2 guest spaces for 8 units = 18 spaces). Seven-
teen parking spaces including one guest space are provided in the
subterranean garage. Covered guest parking is not required. The
second guest parking space is provided within the rear yard set-
back area. A storage room approximately 445 sq. ft. in area is
located at the southeast corner of the subterranean structure.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed 30 I structure will be constructed adjacent to an
existing 2 story mUlti-family structure to the east and two, 1
story single family structures to the west. A project neighbor
submitted an inventory of the types of buildings and number of
stories for Hill street between Lincoln Boulevard and 11th street
(Attachment G). To summarize, twelve lots (52%) include one
story single family and mUlti-family structures, eight lots (34%)
include one and two story mUlti-family structures and three lots
(12%) are a combination of one story single family structures
with separate two story multi-family structures. There isn't a
structure within this area that is similar in height and bulk to
the one proposed.
Articulation for the proposed structure employs rounded vertical
elements. Unit entrances are recessed along the west side eleva-
tion. An adequate building setback is provided from the adjacent
two story structure to the east, however, the building appears
massive compared to the adjacent 1 story single family structures
to the west. An additional 3' setback including a roof deck
planter area is provided for the front elevation of unit A. The
front elevation does not appear to provide cohesive articulation.
staff recommends the following condition:
6. The Architectural Review Board shall carefully review the
proj ect design to ensure that the building provides an
adequate transition from the neighboring one and two story
structures and that building articulation shall de-
emphasize the vertical building design and vertical mass-
ing. Particular attention shall be paid to the design and
massing of the front elevation.
conclusion
The proposed condominium development complies with all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and
therefore merits approval.
- 6 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission approve Condition-
al Use Permit 91-022 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50656 sub-
ject to the following findings and conditions:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provision for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, in that it conforms to the provisions of the
Zoning ordinance for the R2 district.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development, in that it is a standard lot, able to accomo-
date the proposed structure while providing required set-
backs, lot coverage limitations and required parking on-
site.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development, in that it is a parcel of 8,360 sq.ft. in
the R2 zone and can accomodate 8 units with the use of the
state density bonus.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project is an urban in-fill
development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious public health problems, in that all
utilities are available.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed sUbdivision, in that the City Engineer has
approved the tentative tract map and taken into account
the required easements and dedications.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that all required setbacks,
lot coverage, building height and parking requirements are
met.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that this parcel is surrounded on four
sides by multi-family residential development.
- 7 -
3. The sUbject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the slope is not exces-
sive, all parking can be provided on-site, and adequate
open space is provided.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that the two existing mUlti-family
structures are proposed to be demolished.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the proposal will require Architectural Review Board ap-
proval to ensure that it is similar in scale to existing
and proposed development in the area.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that all utilities are available to the site.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is sufficiently served by an existing
street.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that buildings in the area are
one and two story single and multi-family structures and
the proj ect will require Architectural Review Board ap-
proval to ensure that it is similar in massing and place-
ment to the existing structures.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, Objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the project site
is located in a multiple residential land use element dis-
trict and complies with the applicable regulations.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that all public utilities are available, and required
building code requirements will be enforced in the con-
struction of the building.
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050
and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, Section
9055 of the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance, in that these Subchapters are not
applicable to new ~ondominium developments.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area
is zoned for multi-family residential construction, and
- 8 -
the subject proposal conforms in height and density to the
R2 zoning.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated July 19, 1991 a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the city
Planning Division. Project development shall be consis-
tent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in
these conditions of approval.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architec-
tural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback im-
pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac-
cessibility requirements.
6. The Architectural Review Board shall carefully review the
proj ect design to ensure that the building provides an
adequate transition from neighboring one and two story
structures and that building articulation shall de-
emphasize the vertical building design. Particular atten-
tion shall be paid to the design of the front elevation.
7. The existing mature trees # one, 10" diameter & one, 14"
diameter Eucalyptus and 1211 diameter Ficus elasticus shall
be preserved in their present location on site, relocated
to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen
trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review
Board.
- 9 -
8. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall en-
sure that at least 50% of the required front yard setback
and 50% of the unexcavated side yard setback shall be ade-
quately landscaped.
9. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
10. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele-
ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
11. Construction period signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
12. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
13. Side yard landscaping shall be incorporated in the east
elevation design to provide screening and design transi-
tion to adjacent structures.
14. Side yard landscaping for the west elevation shall include
the substitution of a drought-tolerant flowering hedge for
the proposed creeping fig (Ficus pumila).
15. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.13-9040.15.
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board
in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and
area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize
noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Un-
less otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board,
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least
five feet from the edge of the roof.
16. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the re-
quired front or street side yard setback areas. The Ar-
chitectural Review Board in its review shall pay particu-
lar attention to the location and screening of such
meters.
Fees
17. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
- 10 -
placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
18. until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
19. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
(CCS) .
20. Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a
security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained
around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept
clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
21. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
22. No demolition of buildings or structures built prior to
1930 shall be permitted until the end of a 30-day review
period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether an
application for landmark designation shall be filed. If
an application for landmark designation is filed, no de-
molition shall be approved for 90 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition, or upon the deter-
mination by the Landmarks Commission that the application
for landmark designation does not merit formal consider-
ation, whichever is sooner.
Construction
23. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
24. sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
- 11 -
General services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
25. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
26. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
27. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the applicant for approval by the Department of General
services prior to issuance of a building permit. The ap-
proved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the
duration of the project construction and shall be produced
upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify
the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business
license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as
well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how de-
molition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erec-
tion/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public
street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in
conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent
and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe
the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend
under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the na-
ture and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings; B} Describe anticipated contruction-
related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of
hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and
extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) state whether any
construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed; 11) Describe any proposed contruction noise
mitigation measures: 12) Describe construction-period
security measures including any fencing, lighting, and
security personnel: 13) Provide a drainage plan: l4}
Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall
minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a
designated on-site construction manager.
28. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis-
tent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall
identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or
applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. said sign
shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
- 12 -
29. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all times during con-
struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
30. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
31. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
32. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
33. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parking is supplied. such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance with the district's limits on number of stories
can be maintained.
34. No fence or wall within the required front yard setback,
inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing or
railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above
actual grade of the property.
35. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to
the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is
located in the subterranean garage, the security gate
shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which
will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular ac-
cess to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The
security gate shall receive approval of the Police and
Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
Validity of Permits
36. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
- 13 -
37. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
statement of Official Action, project applicant shall
sign and return a copy of the statement of Official Action
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
38. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination, or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit
shall expire two years from the permitts effective date,
unless a building permit has been issued for the project
prior to the expiration date.
39. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the proj-
ect, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and
nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and
shall remain in place until a building permit is issued
for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when
a building permit is issued for the proj ect or upon ex-
piration of the Conditional Use Permit.
Inclusionary Unit Condition
40. The developer shall covenant and agree with the city of
Santa Monica to the specific terms, conditions and
restrictions upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the
subject property, which terms, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorderts
Office as a part of the deed of the property to ensure
that two affordable units is provided and maintained over
time and through subsequent sales of the property. An
inclusionary requirement of at least thirty percent of the
total number of units, excluding any density bonus units
under state Government Code Section 65915, shall be perma-
nently affordable to and occupied by low and moderate in-
come households of which at least fifty percent (50%)
shall be affordable to households not exceeding sixty per-
cent of the (HUD) Los Angeles County median income, with
the balance of the inclusionary units affordable to house-
holds with incomes not exceeding 100% of the (HUD) Los
Angeles County median income, expending not over 30% of
monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the Hous-
ing Division of the Department of Community and Economic
Development. Such restrictions shall be effective for the
lifetime of the project.
- 14 -
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the
unites) available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibili-
ties of the City of Santa Monica to prepare application
forms for potential tenants, establish criteria for
qualifications, and monitor compliance with the provisions
of the agreement.
Owner shall provide the City Planning Division with a con-
formed copy of the recorded agreement prior to approval of
the Final Map.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of the Housing Element of the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica. Developer shall satisfy
the obligations created by this Agreement by demonstrating
to the Director of Planning compliance with ordinance 1577
(CCS) , which provides implementation standards for this
program.
special Conditions
41. Inclusionary unit D shall be redesigned to incorporate
room sizes of comparable dimensions with inclusionary unit
C. Plans shall return to staff for approval with square
footage calculations prior to ARB review.
42. An additional one foot setback from the east building edge
shall be provided for roof decks to ensure a minimum 10
foot setback prior to Architectural Review Board review.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off site improvements required by the city Engineer
shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer and approved by the city Engineer.
2. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site im-
provements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared
and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the
final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica
for approval. No building permit for the project will be
granted until such time as the final map is approved by
the Santa Monica City Council.
4. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica En-
gineering Division for a final map, applicant shall pro-
vide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action.
- 15 -
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
CC & R 1 s shall contain a non-discrimination clause as
presented in Section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con-
dominiums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec-
tion 9122E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium
Tax of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provi-
sions of section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of
sections 9330 through 9338 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid
prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City council
approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final parcel map shall conform to the provisions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act.
9. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be
provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Re-
corder prior to issuance of any building permit for a con-
dominium project pursuant to Government Code Section
66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a
copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the
required copies of the map are submitted.
10. A copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the Plan-
ning and Zoning Division before issuance of a Building
permit.
11. Pursuant to section 9366 (SMMC) , if the subdivider or any
interested person disagrees with any action by the
Planning Commission with respect to the tentative map, an
appeal or complaint may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be filed after a ten
day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
Prepared by: Susan White, Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius and Location Map
c. Photographs of site and Surrounding Properties
D. Letter & Petition to Planning Commission from project neigh-
bors dated 6/24/91.
E. List of neighborhood meetings for 1017-19 Hill Street dated
9/16/91.
- 16 -
F. Letter from steven Harris to Planning Commission dated 10/
24/91.
G. Letter from Dean Franks to Planning commission dated 10/20/
91.
H. Letter from Jane Dempsey, Friends of Sunset Park to Planning
commission dated 10/27/91.
I. Letter from Grant Wada to staff dated 9/15/91.
J. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
smq
PC/h022
12/19/91
- 17 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Land Use
Element
Permitted Use
Multi-
family
Resid.
Moratorium status N/A
D\'lelling Units
1/1500
sq. ft.
parcel
Height of Building
30'
Number of Stories
2
Height of Walls,
Fences
N/A
Setbacks
Front yard
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sideyard
Rearyard
Projections Into
Yards
N/A
Lot Coverage
NIA
Parking
Access
Alley
access is
encouraged
when alley
exists.
Alley dedication
N/A
Municipal Code
MUlti-family
Residential.
8,360/1500
= 6 units
+ (.25)6
= 8 units
total.
30 " from
A.N.G.
2
3.5' f.y.,
6.0' side
r.y. setbacks.
20'
7'
IS'
No proj. shall
extend closer
than 4' to any
prop. line.
50%
Alley access is
required when
alley exists, with
exceptions per
Sections 9044.8-9.
project
MUlti-family
Residential.
6 units
+ 2 state
density
bonus units
= 8 total.
30', from
A.N.G. of
87.7'
2
3.5' f.y.,
4.0' s.y.
setbacks.
20'
7'
IS'
Arch. proj.
extend 18"
into s. y., 30"
into f.y. set-
backs as permitted
by code.
4,202/8,360
= 50%
Alley access
provided.
None reg. for existing 20' alley
width.
- 18 -
Parking Space Number NjA
Compact Space %
NjA
NjA
Trash Area
Mechanical Equip.
Screening
NjA
18 spaces
(2 spcs.j8 units
+ 2 guest spcs.
= 18 total).
None permitted.
Trash enclosure
with minimum 5-8'
solid walls and
gate is required.
Mechanical equip-
ment extending more
than 12" above roof
parapet shall be
fully screened from
a horizontal plane.
Parking Area Screen NjA
Front yard 50% of req.
Landscaping NjA f.y. setback.
Sideyard 50% of req.
Landscaping NjA unexc. s.y.
Unexcavated
Sideyard NjA 1, 4' unexc.
s.y. required.
Inclusionary
UnitsjFee
Housing
Element
requires
compli-
ance
with
P. 12.
Must provide two
deed-restricted,
affordable units.
to comply with
Proposition R.
- 19 -
18 spaces
None provided.
Provided within
r.y. setback with
screening as req.
Any proposed to
meet code reg.
prior to ARB
review.
Project complies.
Project complies.
1, 4' unexc.
s.y. provided
along west s.y.
setback.
Complies with
Proposition R
requirements per
Ordinance 1577
(CCS) .
--
.. --..... ...J
- c---1A
STlUT .. -
. ;
;
,~
.f
\I
LINCOLN
"
L.8JAL OESCRIPTlON
LoT Zo, Block ~'3 -' E.3~ S t'1T..acT CASE NO CoUP .:J-Cz. '-
VT'T M "SCc..S'2.
K'Z-
Ion I\Olq HI\....L.... ~T
ZONE
STREET ADDRESS
APPLICANT
TAKA llEMU ~^
DATE.
4/'2.Co/.:r!
~ /7..S'" IC))
;a;:;;us MAP FO R
PUBLIC
HEARING
uJIo\rE
[PU\!MIM~!M@ !Q)~!r->Mir~~!M~
cm@~
S-.-Jk~
CAUrolrU'd<<~
.~...c.
AIIDI Mop
Sheet No
-If
A HJChm6Ylf f3
e
Parking space Nu~]:ler N/A
\
'\
"-
Compact Space % N/A
Trash Area N/A
Mechanical Equip.
screening
N/A
/
/
/
None
/
Trash enclosure ;I
. ~. -'
w~th m~n~mum 5-8/
solid walls an9/
gate is required.
r
/
Mechanical .quip-
ment exte~inq more
than 12",/above roof
parape~/shal1 be
fully ,'screened from
a horizontal plane.
18 spaces
(2 spcs.j8 units
+ 2 guest spes.
:z 18 total).
None permitted.
Parking Area Screen NjA .-
/
,"
/
Front yard /50% of req.
Landscaping N/~/ f.y. setback.
Sideyard 50\ of req.-,
Landscaping /N/A unexc. s.y. '>
"- "-
Unexcavated -....
""-
Sideyard / NjA 1, 4 · unexc.
s.y. required.
Inclusionaty
Uni ts/Fe~'
Housing
Element
requires
compli-
ance
with
P. 12.
,-
/
Must provide two
deed-restricted,
affordable units.
to comply with
Proposition R.
- 19 -
tit
18 spaces
provided.
Provided within
r.y. setback with
screening as req.
Any proposed to
meet code req.
prior to ARB
review.
Project complies.
Project complies.
'l...t.. 4 I unexc.
s.~ provided
alon:g~t s. y.
setback.
Complies wit "
Proposition R .
requirements per
Ordinance 1577
(CCS).
..
\ ,1
\ i
\ \
i \
i, \
i
-
---
~
~
~
It
A tf J '- h,JI ii4 -t C
: t
, ,
,
~
j
I
r ,-
-
e
e
AtfJ C !-1 ;11 e<<+- C
"
4
i
..
e
f
\;
e
June: 4
lS91
D~e: Pla~n~~g C~mrn~S51~~e~
~_ _ppose ~he proposed ccndcili~n1~~ development at l017-!019 Hl:l
st~=et for the fcllowlng ~easons_
1) 1nccrrpa:ab111ty wlth th~ ne1ghbo=hood-- The str~cture
~o~ld ce 30' tall, a~d hav~ a f:at roo: The helght, wh~le wlt~ln
s~rrent R2 ~egu:at1ons, :5 well beyond both the present average
r.e:g~~ cf b~lld~ngs on the b:o~k, and R2 qU1dellnes unde~
cOPs1derat~on by the Plannlng COmm1SS1on :see: "HeIght
LIIDltat10ns In Res~dent~al Zo~es" memorandum March 20,1991], 1017
would eas11y be the tallest struct~re C~ the block. The
develor:ment 'l'iculd spark a "domlno effect" (A nel.ghbor has
~lre~dy stated hlS 1nter.tlon to construc~ a s1mllar struc~u~e If
thls develcpment lS approved.}
2) negatlve park~ng ~mpact-- Guest ~ar~lng and a 6-fold
lncrease ln traffIC generated by the s~r~.~tcre would l.ntenslfy
congestlon ln the alley and on Hlll pr0per.
3) Inequ~ty 0: In~lu5:cnary houslrrg-- The Ilv1ng rooms of
the c~njc ~nlts face the weste~ly breeze and the Vlew. The llVl.ng
rQC~S of ~he rent a: unlts ar~ prOVIded w1th Vlews of the
~el;ht~~s' walls anj be1roo~s.
4) reduct~cn ~f ne1g~bor'$ q~~llt'l of Ilfe-- A structure on
the sC2:e f~opo3ed would re5ult :r- a se=:cus dlrn:nutlo~ of t~e
r:rlvac.y, Vlew, llght, and ve:~t:~at1or.. of the :1e1ghbors at 1021.
Sj a~st~et~c ~or.51dera~:cns-- The b~~ldIng makes lr..adequate
prOV1s~on fQr lands=apl~g, lS over-ar~l;~:ated, and shows poor
~-.:.:nty _?I..:!_e-::. ~;;'fl)J'dl:s./.a.;"~':'~S' .
"f'_ --Z $/7 ('"Coo ~~ta"- f"Y\\)~ . ~ ~'-'.1 .4~. -:tI
/}; ~4 . (b1'011~~tt..)-- l/~Uh__-' /~~, -'T..'!.-.---~-..7~~- /ICJ~~)~
,~~tlbrl~-:S""N'. C~ 9o'1~ ~~,/ K~~_ /tJ:J II!rf..,--Jf" S r(
- ; ,..,i? i ry- ~ "2.-70~ J/.Jt..Sf- J /] ,(
/~ . SM, C::C4-GtS- -~;:.. t', ~_ i0<.'7v-~/t -; -///((,) I -
Ii WJ~ j~=l{c;;::; (;.1 ~,41/1.I05(H,(fd0yl
(.~--L ~fJ~~ J .5,.., ~/~ ~I;/t) Ptk-{" /. IC)! ( I~ 117 J ?',~t(,
. ~ ~ ~;t:V1 }it II Jf ~tkLJL.;")VLi 1114/ ~/(j'2-~ rldt Sr~/Yf
/ il ' , . // 0 . J
1. tr. LJJtr./Y';,U2 If) 2.9 ''I'LL 5, . -x:: j.'/1'l'-~(..L..Lj :?7~(./ / /-:'t-, /.-f -")t.r1
. ~ ;' / .., I, I. J .../'-"'v...... I v- , - \
I ~..{t.:.. ~-/ ;/i/v1.{)t.~_ (02,'1 r[;is f't;;ttfiu 'iMMcL~_ I&:'J- .'~' I!-:- '-,-r,
.-;;~C '1!tjt;/lt;--;0::;tlMJ{! '(f! I !~,/~~ ~l /( /r; M I~L ~i
_~\t-: ~ 'j1"'~ \H'~ "*2. ~. j Ion' HILL rr 15~
"D
Gj)~jJ'l /P/7'- /1///:;;7. #/
. ..-
. ---4 II
_-~1
~f,71A/ ~--7ICf/'T /.././--/' ~#,;;L 5/11
GUH12:: ~.J(tA-,_ 1&IOiJ. r.//~ WIl \0__ nJ)....f :{. tl ~^iI.MJV(!J4Jtj-/w
C!Li.. A-u.~ ~ d f/1. f./~~~ Sf s.fI1, - ~ 'i~~/ ;~t.~ l f ~'r Po / ~. '"'( A'
: . / I // / / . tfc<.J{ ~-- 5--,,"'1,,) 1(" I~:" t -
^ b.ti A .id i( t! IY fl. C! / J. 11 '')j );fJ, ~"'\ ~-'- HI/I S t .j J JI<-I.
~IIAHk~~' kt4/~ -:r-.4 fj1~5- ~I-;CiwJ /DII 14-11;/1 Sf- ~A/(~
/ -
LIIl:/P- !)hL~;;;er ";2..'5""))r 1/:i ~Y'P)
e
rJ'\.t....C'L '--.l_L....,k\.<:- ~-;.rs \.\'\\\b~k\~.
e
5111
, ,
Ii
J r
1/
~- .// /" ---- ~ "?~/ --'/ -/~ . ..--/
~.i'!"c.--.J-_ ~...-:k/6I' /~-7 ~'--L- -J';'"
s;.-~...- S:L-- --!\.A~ ~ ~ ~~
}_~ 2..~-\""~( f..:C4
~ ~ ~ -. I
~\a.,'~,~.\l)l\j'd' 0 ] (").)i H.\l<;t;ii;:1 5M 9tJ..b/ ~ H-Me.e<s f.!:'?_1 HIl_L.._~H1- 9? 9~S
. ....~. A. _ . I ... t~L.L. H 7 ~'~'.~,~, tf '5 f J r\"j) 7 ::..: . .- ~ .l \
.. .. ;l 'j -J ~ / If ' I 1
.I.!L...... l ,17 d. (t.. 1-1'--' ::- (1;',"- /;;/"'-_/. -:t- L '1/"j
, .. : I, . .:> ~~...5.: (r:.... -~., tI--, ~ ~
. " \.~\"""'____""""'-"...__..---"...Li......"-\. 1--_ ,..{.~ If fl {....... ...... I:. -
tJ- Z~: ~_A:/bE[:!_?(~:)7>>-/0--'~~ A-vt-Ot1IC/1 !hit trr'.;H ~,,4L7
,( i ,) // (oa riM ltiff
hL.;LJ J. I~~ Uu~'\ ~"'- fWas-
~~-
I? i.A 1-1-, )( / ;{J
\__ .....' \ ___ - ---- > \ (' r \._}
~ 'A..... ' :J :~ yv~ \ ':.:, v1... I
--~. /' ,,_ ,'- -, i i-~'-<"'" 4...-<- C
/(. _7_ . --;--io -.J '_~J r:::- /"" Il-e.....
'" -'Y-. ~ f' ;:r s..... Q L 'Jt< '" r::-.. V"Lt Z 0<..,
IS (!..../AYlV' f(Yi 14tH )',# SM.
r~' i
~ " t i '"',.. 1I
I;,., ~ --... 't'lll~
,I ;-)). \, Ll
.:- ; <;. . \,
-......., J -, n
Y!..z-- {,,/'flt.r~ -;;}C'f f/;'; .-~ f,.M
'~~J' 'l>~ ~ ~'"h~/" L ~jv ':'7/
-"""" .
10 .;?- -' /, J/A /7 / ,Ii elf'
r--" ''.L,,"/~_ Q.. " '.7.... /:/L',( - 0/ ' - ~ /f
\~-~:J ~f? ':-i '(L il'! or.-t ~ I 511
,-, ' .-:;
. ('\J _ill~' ~" :~. ":. - c r:-" ~ ~ :.), "- I~ 1
. .. ~ ~ r. ~
.~
/t;. iI1~ ff,.., I' .,.. ~ L 7 C" <t U..!:b.-t' +- _ H-l. >-M c..A y
/,-, - ] ,/ . - fCJ'fo-
i: r:>~ h '\. JL\ /\.A // c-c d.. 1-/ L~~ l .~
~ '/~II A";;-'Sf #-A
'.~--\
i ;
I
; ....
:-~ ~ $:!- .
-:;J I - ..
>.--
,..-
-j . ~ ~_~,_::,:; /,-.7, __ -.1
", I I J- _oC-.-'iijr '- ---.
- - _ ,r"- ~_
I --r .r /' , ,14,. '-1V.~ <.+-
_ ' (... ""..A/y&~,\ :;Ul,vt"vz,J' n i..- ---:. ' -I.., >>f.., !A '
[f.JJ..t.J.J:t ~ 10J-1 IhLt \to ~ t . S.I-{
;%/~.-/-:7" -r;:; , ~/ J'
/ . / . II // . ,
/', '/,>utL- :4? (0)( ~?r:#t, ~,itL
~i;t;;;~ ~1#.2J /hi! s"T-'~ S?L
~f/1;1Ml./ ~ ID ~lI1:Jl5f.$.L 5!11
D
"lEV:L....::
-'-~L !~:} 2: 33938273
S~O 16.91 20 S6 No 003 p 02
e
e
September 16, 1991
Susan white
Plannin9 Department
Community Develcpment
city of Santa Monlca
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, ca 90401
Re: 1017-19 Hill street Condominiums
Dear Susan,
Ir our day-timers are accurate, this 18 the info you requested:
Dat.
w/Nbo.
Discussion
4/16-
Homeowners
101,- Hill St.
I
Proposed project, set-backs,
height, etc. Combining 2
lots with central court.
5/2
Homeowners
1021 Hill st.
council11lan
commissioner
S.P.A.N members
Proposed project, zoning,
potential in-lieu payment,
roof deck set-backs, slde-
yard planting/screening,
closed/open parapet walls,
density/contexuality, ma-
ture front yard planting.
5/13
S.P.A.N. members
Proposed proJect, zoninq,
east elevation articulation,
light/privacy trade-off,
continuous front elevation
wall massinq, contextuality.
5/22
Homeowr.ers
1021 Hill St.
Liqhtjprivacy, east eleva-
tion articulat1on, roof deck
running too close to edge,
lost N/W vie~s across alley,
air circulation between
buildings, reducing density
via in lieu payment, trees;
E"
;"'1 E I.,} : _ _ ~
7/22
8/5
8/29
TEL ~c 2133938~73
e
Steve Harris, rep.
neighborhood
steve Harris, rep.
neighborhood,
Jane Dempsey, rep.
Friends of S.P.
steve Harris, rep.
neighborhood
3 e .~ 6 . 31 :2 J . 56 No, CO 3 P, 03
screening between buildings.
Lost N/W view across alley,
alr c~rculation, roof des1qn
to facilitate air flow, liv-
ing rooms facing bedrooms,
sideyard staircase outside
adjacent bedrooms, in lieu
payment, trees/screening.
tl
n
II
Density, height, reduced
front wall massing, context-
uality, Hill st. traffic,
mature planting, 56t lot
coverage, in lieu payment.
Reduced front massinq, set
back deck/parapet walls,
reduced building length,
reduced lot coverage (50%),
removed sideyard staircase,
removed livi"g room vis-a-
vis bedrooms, N/H view
across alley r89ained,
added roof deck planters,
added mature tree to front
yard, offered street tree
planting, rear yard in-
creased. from 9' to 12'10",
added landscaped rear yard,
moved all resident parking
below grade ,~t the expense
of priv't/securlty garaqas).
k
e
e
R'ec.E. Ivt; D
,
Pl,....A l-! ~ z.ol'l
10 /2<4. /4 \
(l)
D.v
- ...... .,
::2.:':
::o+-
~7
=- :=':--L --= 3. ~.: -:::'-'1:" :: 5.
:~:l..
-,"- ---"
~ : :: ~ e....- : 4
r""'-.::.. = ,_
::; :: ~..... - - r-
.::m;,71':'~ ::
-.
-- --.- ..- "-" - --
\Tf~'" .-_+ __ ., -. ?~e-"-=n !-.:':i:-:-:'S '::\.2:=.: ::'J:: '.1-11 ~'":_~ee~:; -:3.:-":3-
~.... -= :-_ =- :: 3; T ^' - . . 1":; .L :. -: -= : :) E::' =- :- e W.: 1:: h y:) U ""', Y CO:1 C -? . ~ ::- -=-- ~ 2. r ::. =- :: ~ ~
;:~~:~~i :~~i:-~n:l~ ~: :::7- - ~ll: 5t~~e~ (:~? 3:-J:~ I ~y
~~~~~ ___. - E~~l~~ f~~~ 7Y PO~:~l:ns as ~n :Imed~atE '21Uh~~~
_ - ~ - ~ ~ ... ..: 2 n: --. ~ -.... .... _ .: t ~ == 2: +: I 3. :; --'" r::.!: ~ z ? ~~ ...... - S ~ 1 -: t:= "1,,: 1':':: .:., -., ...
~ -
.. ~
~~.....l2"'i';' -
..;..n.
. ,;:.
'-- -
~~:~CS::lan thst ]L3t laws
_ .:::-==_-~-W:2~:d:.._:~ :): :---e~~lJ:".
~.. = f :. ~ . ~ t:
""
: 22 3~___?.'::._-2
........::::.. - = ,.-.~, .
----....-.....
"-T~ - :~ c ::'3.::, 3-unl1:J ~ :::'e'-elJ fli:-~-:(:-~~::
:3 _. _ ~[t~:~ec ~~~3:~; ~~~1~7 je~c~z~r2t~s. ~he~~ ~~~
__~lll"..- ~~ ~:~rEr}C_~ ~~:~~t 0~ ~aS8 t~e E~O-lJJC
-=.. - ,- ~ .... r- . -...:.
- -... ...... -" ----... -
~':''Jck
.;
~.~
~: e : :; .: ...
'-00" T D ~ - _ ' -") W J l: l:! :-'"' 3.:'- _.. e "j: . r :: ::r : ~ :. s h
.... --- . --- ....-
":-.._ _ _ ..... = _ _ _'.1...
1~'J11:
r...; ~ .: :: 1fT 2 :..... :~ . ~ ~ ^'t ~
__ .... __'r -
:3.~_'::
'::r=.:=~':::
L-2
='_.:. -: tt2 ~.""1 ere I
'Jll:.2.dll:C; ";r-::, :::'d
and ~c~se1~~e~~:~ ~es~~e
Wl~.l ~~3 ....._ ~~~~~;r) ~j
3.l......~ ,
~~:-2 1:: .~~
:.:3 :
=-:-=:-:t:~i
cr~3.~e a
;e!~..:~:.- =- t 7- j
E l:{- fa:':1 :.n.... r€:.:i
;.....T. 1-~"'_1")
- ~ .... 0..-- .
:..-- ",
_.::::-~ a..: ~
l-,,,-~,",,,:;::
.j,~- ----
~"l
1.,...... . c .:.
........,. ...... - I
c -:: ~-.. g est 1 C Ii
" .
-:1.J ...l':: ~ -.? - .? ':t r .:~ =- - ;
:~::~d: E-!:
=.:i j
~...:.t- '::
... -- ... --'
- ,
;,...- :: ~-" -- Q
-= 1 :;r_:-
-:- ::. 't- -
=
.... ~ -=: !: :. :"' :; ~ r~"l:: :-_
-- .......:,
,..J ..:. ~ -~::. ~ ....., T""' :::::....-:=:
...~ ..... V _ _ ...J;;'- _ _ ~
-'f !1'?:" ;~:..:: ::-::
.-
- - - - --1
--...-:::-.....
,,:1:_.:,;.:2:=:3 w~lL:::re a c.:1.1j:'1::; 'I'l:__ :::
.::----~1- -_::1 c. ~_1_-"'::"~5 :;'-...--- ~!:.=-~:.. ;;.=.~...~
,.- ~ ___ _ ~: :-."/I~ ~,...,.:..1~:._:.;:r:~~5 ... --.. -::::--!..-eC~
--r : "'Ie _ ~ ': :". '= y :-.3.'::? ,- co +",. Eo::J. t:: :.: ~ 3 :: _ "I:? L:::-
::2:= ;~:Ja~- :~s a:~;2~:1:1~E t~:K
:"':"'.:1
L
-c::
"': ,\"
\}l' -= ~ ::: :.... :::-
~~=C~
~
-.~ ,;:.
~ - ~ .. --r ...
-'"~... - ,
-=.
::..--~ ~:~ ~3
:: e _'.: -: ~- :i ~
.:
t- -
~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r:2 ~:r2 S.3 ,
(""'<"P T;:J
..~ _- Or
-~...,
- - ..
,...-:...=.=
..... -..... --
::1
,::!u-~::, t
~',
= -- --.;;
-- ........ - ---
:..:e PI'1!""..C le
~e: ,;::..: :- _" --::--::>":
-r +-h'"
......i... __..... ___
:: .) ~. ~: ~ = :- =- ~::
..=; :;.-- ~
~ : 3. ~
4c:::i'e:-;
2ppe~r
-y
--- .:...
~>. ,::.
::. ~ "": : : : ::J ~-:
._.j-. - ~ '-,
..-0/ _.;... _ ....L
:::3._....~
;......
::~1~
--i - ~.-.r:..-
::--,.-,.
.....,. ..... - - +- ::Ii
.~ ~
~~"!e p:"OJ ect
.....~.. ::.:i
-:-~_~,""'/'"n
.......,. ...;
;-., ......-~..
..... .. -- '- ~ ---
c:
~l...__
- . r.... -::;. :~_ ~ .. --
----.1--,
3.
,::
.- -< - - - - ..::;
-:-.-"":_r~:.t..,. ljt.'h:'::~1 lS .ve~l. =-:1":=~~-~~~C:
~~~~ 3~d ~a~:~31 5~?t~.~ 7~:~;n
1 ):ed :~'~~lel:'~_1JS ~ :n:-:e:"-..-=+:e-t-:-l.:-i,oy
1:1 t..::-r~-=
::-"..--.-or":'
;......... -
+-l.,.=.. "-0
-...... -.;,....... - - -
- -> 2:- 2-1. - ..:.:.:;:--
:::=cm~ ~~~tils ~~e-
~
-. .::. ..a
_ 1
.:::: -? :-":e::.
......!.-- --.. ~-
.~
r- --'':::'
~:- -.r: 3.':: =
~
,-
.:.
::- ~
ill ~..
:-""'1 _i.:"'--/
i:
:: _"oc~ _ ~ ~
'):
............. , ....-
- ~-
..... - - - --..."
.. - .-
ot _ .... __.
"',--
_ - _ _ ,-.- _ ~. -1
I
:-? -: -:-.]-:--':::'
~~e
_.....-.3.....
3.C~3
-:.-?F"~
\~:"- ~ ~- =<:: 'J"
'" 1: e =--- ;
____ ~ -/1.4' - t J - r:. =: --:; -- _
:~
:;
::
~, -t
~ Io.,~ - : - T : : -?:- :- : ~ - ~ -?:: :. :. --= 1- ,,- ~ -_ ~ :: l:; : _ 3. T t -= "J e -= Yl :- 2 t: __ ~ ... 7 i
-I. '
", "") -
"'+':-:.:
i.--... ..
,. -
_ ,-J
.... - - .=.
~""
~ -
~=
- ..-~-~--- ~ :
,;;.
------1"
:_...3._::~G.
:~
'-
\'
..;.~ ~. .~
,,;3_/1fll .
e
e
:.:3.~ ::~l;btc:"_:~:j
f::, :.-
.....1~ .::::.
'/(2_3: =_::1-
.: - ,,- .:--. 3. '::. -=
..:!.- - ... --=--
_ 3.~-.;e
~1~~e~s ~: rent~~~
:J ~:-.:::3.:=e ~ !"'_ :-11e- ..1.......
T
w::.s
~~
:::.1.--." ...
.......J...._'=:::
a -: =- :: ~- ":!
S 3.r: t ~
),,18 -:::.. =-3.
=.':"t::c_.;r>
1"
~: 3. './ -= ~ :-0. ~ f -= : ..- -=- -=
.... - . i ,"" .-.
- ~ Oc1 :: :.:- ~ : -::: :-:1 : ~ :... e
:: - .., ...
. ~ --- .... --
::::-:.:r
.::; : r ::.. -: :
__~a'::. :e~".,r
81-:.:.' ~d
.- F ~.
: ::=
.. ,:..-'" ~.. n
.- - ..... __....1.
.:1
~-.:::. . - -=-,-
.... --- ---
-::;._::-...~.;_-....3.~..=.' f
;3 _1 S .::~ = ~
-:,.......-:J.'::~
:~-=-: ;_~!:.':':-S
r^T :: i~~ __ ::.
3.
---.....--
=t:--'=--=
:' :
~
~
..--... ---
..--_...~--~
..... - J- _ ~"=_
35
::l.-~ ;~r::.t:ir
=:-:::L~
-,r-',:::,-+-
......... --- ..J - -- ....
.1 ~::.. -:-.:::'_'
':')
~::e
~...; -= - ....
o.:;.::-./:!.. ~ 3.;e:. r J...f"'- :-::::3.":
.: "l..= ':::::"d .~ -'-.a::
t- ,- - .::. ,. 11: 3 f :!.111 ~ ~. _
.- .::.
....l~:..
:e-:
= :r'pe:le-:
-1
..... :':= s
.3 -_: ""1 ~- -5:-
~ 'I- - ~.,.
__ L -= .;.
!-... :: '1 e
::'1: :!
t~::.-ee
-+:: prl--acy
:'~.1 t3.':"S. .:"5
":Jy 3. :.--=!:c:.-~../
i::'S
;-r:-Jpe1...t:l'
- .
:ti....
:='__:-'='3.-~:-
:= :', r:~~d
.~
- ~-
~
~- ~ .3 t
:ip~r'-':>-e:: t ,
~!~ e
C-;:':=, l-=
i .::l-t
.....~-~.:....- f.A.!-'., ...., J~rl'Jl_~'''' tte j::t5o? 3~d ::..-e.1r-3...... uu....._:::- ". ~ J......~_~=--1
-:_'_~e -:,)'-r;:a::-a.t_-= ___ .3:=2 ~- ...... _ ...:r.::-=:e.:t ~lC::.::=2e-a. 3.~ _~l"'"
l.. -: ,;:,.:3 r_'--' ~ ~ e ~ ~ t~- ~- ~ 3. ~ -:: rl a -: 1 ~ -.... ::. 'r .... - r -. ~_
~~~e~~ !l~rs 3:~::~r __ ~~~~ -~~:':Il ~~.; S~:2~~::~:l:~~
....~..-.: - =- - ..-..~ -
~ - - -~ - ~ -
.1
:i _ :-,-
-r;...-:''i
~ -...
....~.::.
... L:e =-'
....... -.,,- - -
;J" _! - - '=-
: f
tre
'::: :"1
-~....~
.... ~... ~
~:- -=..: -2 _: t
-: "_: =. ~: ') ~1
::"5
-: :: .3. '=
:':J?
S:-C2:.
='11
C' 0=0.'-
;:
.: _'r~;~-=r
....; I", ::. C ~ .To :::. ' . .J ~
.... <to- _~ _1':" :: ~ ;: I
3 ~ 2- -; -E~l-2 :. ~.-. -:? :.: .:" ~ e i ~ :=. -=
cste~~~C~i :~ JrC2~
::",. ce
~..;..rl1~at:-::-:~
L' C :.- e 3. s e
::;, +.::. - "'-,-1 ~,.... I ..=.
---....-~ -...........
J .. :. "_:.:: ~:~ g
:'.1[, r_~l:Jt_!:J:-~:':Jj 1.5 II "=~1" tc ::-_.ie3.s"
3.-13.::3.=:.l::1'~./ .)! ::=f.:rr:.2t.~~ 11011s::1q __
'"
~~.._---....- r.
~ __~':-"::; ~_v
-....i t: l c: 11 t ~"! ~
j:-:~:~~ej e~;e~ f~~~~~er th~:~g~ ~te 1~s5 -~ Clrre~t ~~n~3: ~~:ts
~::=~;:y 3upp~rt :~c:~s::..~~~~v h~~SlGg ~~=:.
:~: _e.- ~::..ffl=~lty 3=cept:~~ ~ well-p~~f0rt:cne1 5
_~:i-= :-m~ _"~n:21 !,:rcj -ec-: ~U__ _"4 a..;-:et::':I1; -" ;a:--~3.J.:~-l3._~
~J: l~ ~e:~a:,l'i ~e:~cm~ :~e twc renta: Ul~:~S at 1J:
~~_~ _-c:m;~n:~d ty ~cur C=GdOwln:u~s ~~we~~~ Whl~~
'I'f'- t'
'"to'I'?
lLI. ~ :..-- tV
::: :,::dlT::':_'
:.t
~ LJ. ~ ~~
~~
i '_ ~
,---"":: : -:- ':: ~
.......'-'"
~i1E
:1l:IT"'.c e ~..
---..;
...../...i..
:~=:~31c~a:y ual~S,
:= ": r er_ _~,:,..j ; =- ~r
::JJ-?('':
:!--..~ ~ ~ :1~:L~l'=
~'y ~~~er3t3njl~g
- ~ ~
.....J. "=
l 3. '^'
c:,n: e :-:1:' :-...;;
.j ==":"=: 1 :. --.. ~ ..:;. =- 1: a_13 e .=
:1::1 ~cl~~3ry hOlls~ng 15 ~ta~ ~~e _~t~-l~~~me ~El~~al U~~~~
__ :~p ~:- ':\.t:. e :.c. t~le ~c:: ~il1~ar1.i1.~1:; ~w::e:-- j :c._~p led 11:-'1. ~ ~
3r~ ~~e r~~t~:s ~~ :C:' =c~parable ~_ ~he :~~~~S~ 7he 1-
~2~~a_ ~n:: C is o~ly 8' w:de T~~ l~ft c~ un:~
~ ~_;..~ :C:t:-.1--E:::: a "l.Jf"t'1 3.~d ......- a 3:..-d :_'::~" :e:l:" :;")~ c-=.::a.~..5e
=,-~ 1S tte largest rc)~ :~ ~~e 2p!~~-e~~
rL~ ~
:= '"""'" ..L_- -
L:<. ~ IT
"" ~'
'......h
~~~ i~~elopErs h3ve cle3~~Y t5~ ~d the ~7 ~~~
;~=:~C~ for the sole pu~~~s~ cf ~=:a_~:~~ tte jE~5:::Y t~~:~E
t~v~ ~asted preC1CUS .::..::::~ 2~E~;Y :n t~e :~~51~e~~tlo~ ~-
~3.Cl=a~ll.:ty cf the ~~l:S
n:=s of C~F ~:-J~= a~ ccr~ar=b:"~
1~ :r: l t.:::
.: :: t 0
:r,.e: ~-
......'...
:r.e
qJ.2..3 ~: ')::
7c
~:::~pt
:- J-"' 2
:;':::_' .=:::;_'~ary
3..-.. ~~ : =- ".t:: :~d
:~i. -=
....._.......,.... -:l....... ...
~ ,-,.i-_ .... _ ~
3. ~~1 ::..:. 3.C =- :?
.: L:m;: e ~-
l~:t-=.:.:: =-~:::: -:~
JL
t E -:: 1.- :: -:: ~ 3
',..;.:; ___: _ :1
2~
r -
.- ~
1"' ~'\.e
"'1 C-": 1.:
': f
~
~.;-..e
2..ar,
-; :'l~:-rl:'llq
8 ~ ~: s l. ~ ir
':::C::l.~:::e :;
. -L .:1 e -: ~- ~ t-
., ...... ...
......J ....
<:;:e
:::~v=-l::.~=:-~
31.."i. 1_'1. ~ ~..
: :. :13.:' l. ~-
:-:::€~~
:. :'i
-.- -= ~ -" : ~:..... :;
-t: 1- -=
~ --:.. :: _- t::
::.e;t~g7 ~~
:-~3.S '[-atle
'" ~ ) f t ~ 'I
:0
:.e::;'~~3~::::-:
...
_- ~ ::i~~~
:=et~
;2:":j )11
r..-t': __
r2CC ~:-_:::2
...,....-
'-- - ~
.,.,
c::.;;.
f '"','
\.,,10 :
\-
e
e
15 3 ~h=ee s~or~y jl,::d~_:J ~=t31:y ~~~ ~f 3:al~ wIth :ts
s~=r~~~d:~gs ~he le;:31~t~re ~ay jec~are apples =0 be :rangEE
::MC~=~d ~'le rea3cna=:e ~e~sc.: wl:l :cn~:n:e ~J ~~c~g~::e i~o:es
..-. ...: n 2 : ~1 e .1 e .s L5
:: ~5 ~~: Wlt~~~ :~e p~rv:ew of th2 ?lann:ng C=mD1S3l~n t~
~e er:e 5~3:~ :aws s:n~ly ~eca~se :~ey fa:l the test ~f
re33c~~~n:l~:7 Ha~~ver~ 1~ 15 t~e mlSS1~Il of :~e C~~mlSS:~~ I't~
~rJ-o=~ ~G~. g2neral welfare by Enccu=ag:~g =~e ~ost
a~pr:p:::a=e .15e :;f :3..1d, ;l!:"C!l:::.e adequate ,);:02.' S:_ _ :e5 :0:'- :::.. ;1::
aLi ~lr pree~~ ~=dLe conce=tratlons ~~ pC~~12:1Qn, I ~~d' _e~~~:
:':]:lgeS!,:,c.'l.Jn s::-eets..." I arr: pr:J1..J.d ar:d l'ap!=y :;: :':'-,2 :n 3. C:':.:-
r.-l:tt.L s'-:..::: ~ .:l-.;i:- ::::nfl1:.~me~:. ~o p.iac:11; t.~:e ::.:;mm.~r: qo.)cd :ljct...-~ =w.l='
~~hEr C~~31deratl_!!5~
~~ ~a~~ l~s~st~ t-~2~
a.nd '..fr
~2m~rl ~a~~ oeen =~~?el12d ty
a tJl:dlng w~cse l~apprcprla~e
e=~~o~~~ ~eC~S~l~:~ to
~...-.~pC3!'2
s:3le :~e:~ :~pl:~:tly ~~~)~G~:e ~l~~G~t ~E~r153:l):: ~c ~u:l~ 9
:_:::~ 0.: ~ ~a~:&_ )~lgina::~' acd w:th ~~~:f~st ~cod se~sel zc~e~
~J~ 5 5 ttey ~::~ ~~ ~~~3Die ~c :~r3 t~2 ;rc~:t t~ ~~:=:1 t:l~Y
fE::el ~~:e.':i a:-e -=;.ltl.:="e= 2~o/.-:::n ~r~ tt.e er-3- 8f -:.1-2 Sa\Tl:1g~ end :")dll
~a:l-c~~, : r2waln ::n~:jE~: ~ja~ ~~1e ::ty cf S3n~a ~O~:~3 w:ll
de3l :~~t17 Wl~n an 3r;u~~~~ that lm~lles that 3n e:tl~~
~slg~~~~hocd shculd ~e ~2~2 ~~ ~ay f~~ a de' e:~p~~'s f13~e~
1::'~' oS ::1,",': S J ,-,d:;)"[' er_ t .
Sl:1ce:-el::", A L
~~ tv,-f::Y~
StE'/~n w. ~ar~13
r
e
e
H~ll St. BUlld~ng Inventory (by lot)
1. Slngle-storey detached house wlth slnqle-storey rear unlt/s:
~lots (35%*)
2. a) slngle-storey house: 4 lots (17%)
b) Apartment bUlld1nq. 2nd storey set back at least 50% lnto
lot: 4-.lots (17%)
3. ~~o-storey apartment bUlldlng (2nd floor not set back): 3 lots
( I) % )
4. Detached slngle-storey house w~th two-storey back unlts: 2 lots,
L.a\l
5. a) Apartment bu~ldlnqs. One slngle-storey and one two-storey set
a=ound central court: 1 lot (4%)
b) "split-level" front apart.ment build1ng (see 2b) wlth back
house 1 lot (4%)
All bUlldlngs meet helght restrlct10ns proposed 1n Land Use
and Transportat~on Management Dept. memorandum 3/20/91.
r-:
.-
e
e
Dean Franks
October 20, 1991
10 11 Hill Street, Santa Momca CA 90405
(213) 397-5511
Planning Division, room 111
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attn: Susan White
Re: Conditional Use Permit 91-022, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 50652, 1017-1019 Hill Street, R-2
Applicant: Taka Uemura
Dear Commissioners:
I am a resident and property owner at 1011 Hill street, Santa
Monica California. I have lived with my family as owner-occupi-
ers at this address since March, 1983. My family and I share a
single story Spanish style, flat roofed, stucco house in the
front of our property. Two one-bedroom rental units are located
at the rear of the property along the East property line. The
above captioned Use Permit request has been requested for the
property to our immediate East. I do not object to reasonable
development of the subject property. However, after review of
the revised plans, dated 9-9-91, for an eight unit complex at
1017-1019 Hill street, I must express my objections to this
project.
Considering the present plans for 1017-1019 Hill Street, it is my
opinion that the project is not suited for the property, is not
compatible w1th the neighborhood, and will destroy the privacy
and tranquility residents of my property now enjoy.
In this project, the developer has attempted to push all code
regulations to the limit in order to accommodate his desire to
place six condominium units, two inclusionary units, and eighteen
parking spaces onto a property which is fifty feet wide and one
hundred sixty-eight feet long. The proposed project would be
thirty feet tall. It would have large lofts and roof decks at
the third story level. It would cantilever living space over the
side set-back limits. The entire property and would be excavated
from the alley in the rear to sidewalk in front, with the excep-
tion of a narrow strip along the West set-back. It is my opin1on
that the project is unworkable due to its density, and if allowed
would not only seriously invade the privacy of my family and our
tenants, but would also burden the neighborhood with significant-
ly increased congestion.
I am aware that under state law, a density variance may be
allowed where inclusionary housing exists. As I understand the
Santa Monica code, the property at 1017-1019 Hill street would be
q
t..~ ---..
- ~
,1 / I i ~ /0.,,; - .
~l ., 11 L- - --
-
e
Re: 91-022
October 20, 1991
Page 2
zoned for 5.6 units based upon the total number of square feet of
the property. The state law allows a density variance where two
inclusionary units are included. I assume, however, that the
Planning commission has some discretion in determining the number
of units which may be built on a specific property. Because of
the specific configuration of a property/ or because of its
geographical location, I would think that there would be circum-
stances in which the density calculated by square foot coverage
would not and should not be allowed. A long narrow property may
not accommodate as many units as a square property, and a proper-
ty bounded by lots on each side may not fit as many units as a
property which faces a street. In this case, the property on
which the project is proposed, being both long and narrow, and
bounded by lots on either side will particularly burden residents
of the properties on each side with its mass, and with the noise
it can be expected to generate.
This project has the appearance and function of a three story
building. The project plans a third story loft and roof deck for
each unit. I understand the need to have the sense of vertical
space because no unit has a front or a rear yard. The loft area
would allow the builder to bring vertical light into the living
spaces of the units through the use of an open space at the
ceiling of the living rooms on the second level. However, as
planned, the lofts clearly serve a greater function than funnel-
ing light into the living space. As I have measured the lofts
from the plans, I find that they exceed the c~de limit of ninety-
nine square feet. In addition, especially in the case of the
inclusionary units, the lofts exceed one-third of the area of the
room below. The lofts, as planned, would function as essential
living space of the units. Utility closets are located on the
roof decks which could easily be transformed into closets for the
lofts. In the inclusionary units, the lofts would be largest
rooms in the unit with the exception of the living rooms.
I am concerned whether the inclusionary units, especially unit D,
are equitably designed. The units do have an equal number of
bedrooms as the condominium units, but the quality of the living
space appears to be severely burdened by the size and configura-
tion of the rooms. There does not appear to be room for a table
in the kitChen-dining area of unit D. The master bedroom of un~t
o may have difficulty accommodating a double bed. On the second
level of unit D, a bed would block the path to the bathroom, the
bedroom closet is in the bathroom, and the bedroom appears to be
only seven feet wide. The living room is twenty feet long, but
only eight feet wide at one end, widening to nine feet at the
other. Because the living room of unit D is less than one
~
e
e
Re: 91-022
October 20, 1991
Page 3
hundred eighty square feet, the loft size should be limited to
less than sixty square feet.
Seventeen parking spaces and a storage area are planned in an
excavated space extending from the sidewalk to the alley, and
adjoining the East property line. Access is to be by a ramp
which will run from the alley along the West side set back
line -- seven feet from my property. The ramp will descend to a
twenty-two foot wide lane from which the parking spaces are
entered. The parking spaces are generally divided into two space
units, to be separated by a chain-link fence. Overhead garage
doors are planned for the parking units in addition to a security
gate at the ramp entrance. In order to enter three parking
spaces, the driver must descend the ramp, turn her car around in
the twenty-two foot lane, and then enter her space which would
run perpendicular to the alley boundary. The chain link fencing
appears to take up no space on the plans. In reality, the
fencing would be at least two inches thick, owing to the posts,
plus the thickness of the fencing itself. A full size car would
have tremendous difficulty turning around in the twenty-two foot
lanei even a small car would require several turns in order to
turn around. In my opinion, this parking design would result in
three facts. First, occupants simply will not use the spaces.
Entry and egress would be so stressful that the driver will park
on the street--a street in which parking is already severely
congested. Second, because some of the occupants who would use
the garage would have to turn their cars around in the garage,
the garage will be excessively noisy, and will disturb the
tranquility of property owners on both sides of the garage.
Third, rather than adequate parking spaces, this underground
design has the appearance of individualized underground storage
spaces.
Because almost the entire lot would be excavated in order to
build the planned underground facility, this property would have
virtually no area of unexcavated space at grade level. The front
set-back would contain a large elevated planter, whose shrubbery
would camouflage vents from the underground parking facility.
Adjacent to the alley is planned a small "yard," which again is
elevated from grade level. There is no other area on the proper-
ty which would be available to children as a play area. Children
would be forced to play along the narrow walk at the West bound-
ary or in the underground parking facility. It is alarming that
at a time when the city has amended building the code of the
adjacent Ocean Park area to allow for open space, and play areas,
that a project such as this would be approved.
~
-
e
Re: 91-022
October 20, 1991
Page 4
I am concerned about the side set backs as well. The plans show
that at ground level, the side set-back on the West side is seven
feet. However, stairways from the garage limit the real distance
to the West boundary to less than four feet. In addition, it
appears that at the second level, the building is actually
cantilevered to the extent that it spreads nearly thirty-nine
feet across the property rather than thirty-four feet. This
means that the large picture windows looking down onto my proper-
ty are less than five feet from the property line.
The developer, in the 9-9-91 plans has reduced the area of his
first floor to equal 50 percent of the lot size. This area
however, does not count patio areas along the East property line,
or planters in the front and rear of the project which cover the
cement ceiling of the underground parking garage. In fact, this
project will require the excavation of 92 percent of the property
-- in order to build the stairways from the garage, all but a
strip four feet wide and 168 feet long will have to be excavated.
The underground garage itself will occupy 86 percent of the lot.
The second floor area will also exceed 50 percent of the lot
size.
While the above factors raise serious questions in my mind
whether the project is workable because of the developer's desire
for the greatest possible density, and while the desired density
will impact the neighborhood with significantly increased conges-
tion, I am also very concerned about the direct impact this
project will have upon me and my family, and upon the occupants
of the two other units on our property at 1011 Hill street.
presently, the property to our West is a seven unit apartment
complex. The front set-back of the apartment is lawn, and there
is a grade-level parking lot occupying approximately the rear
seventy feet of the property. We are separated from this complex
by a driveway along our home, and our garage screens our rear
yard. Our house is approximately eighteen feet from the apart-
ment complex. The apartments all face East, that is, their front
doors face our property. The project at 1017 Hill would face
West. At ground level, the project would be eleven feet from our
home and our units. The cantilevered portions of the second
floor would be only nine feet from our home and units. All eight
entrances to the units will face our property. All eight living
rooms, with their large, cantilevered windows, will look out upon
our property from the second level. Kitchens are planned at the
ground level of four un~ts, and all four of those kitchens will
face our property. The des~gn of the project uses the green,
~
-
e
Re: 91-022
October 20, 1991
Page 5
open, space of our property to compensate for its own lack of
such. We ask the commission to require design changes which will
assure a reasonable amount of privacy to us from this planned
development.
Along much of the property line between 1017 Hill street and our
property is a tall, flowering honeysuckle hedge. The hedge
extends from the rear of our house past our units in the rear.
The hedge is more than twenty feet tall. The hedge grows on both
sides of a wooden fence. In his landscaping plan, the developer
calls for the construction of a stone wall along this property
line, and plans to plant a fruiting fig vine. We object to this
action. The fruit will draw rats -- which have been a past
problem in the neighborhood. We request that the commission
demand that the developer provide a landscaping screen equal in
kind and in size to the existing honeysuckle hedge.
The_parking structure also imposes significant privacy problems
for the occupants of our property. The electronic security gate
and steep ramp will be located immediately outside the bedroom
windows of our tenants' units. It's our opinion that some
residents of the project will choose to back up the ramp instead
of dealing with the frustration of turning around in the narrow
lane provided in the parking garage. Our tenants will be sub-
jected to screeching tires and the clang of the automatic gate at
all hours of the day and night. Three stairways from the parking
level will allow venting of the structure. They will also serve
as conduits for the car noise which will be amplified by the
concrete walls and ceilings. One of those stairways will paral-
lel my bedroom in our home. Another will parallel the bedroom in
one of our rear units. The stairways will be within eight feet
of our home and units.
In consideration of the density and privacy issues raised above,
I would therefore request that the Planning commission consider
the following requests:
The property be approved for a total of six units instead
of eight. Four fewer parking spaces would be necessary, and a
reasonable, practical parking arrangement might be designed.
Excavation would not be necessary in the front set-back. Room
sizes and configuration could be habitable and usable in the
inclusionary units as well as in the condominiums. It would not
be necessary to stretch loft space into essential living space.
The parking area be redesigned to reduce the impact upon
our rear units. The ramp be moved to a more central location on
the property. The parking area be a usable parking area--cars
can cross painted lines, but have to maneuver around chain link
~
e
e
Re: 91-022
October 20, 1991
Page 6
fencing. Consideration should be made of removal of individual
garage doors and chain-link fencing in order to promote use of
garage for parking and not storage.
Excavation for the garage should be limited to the front
set-back line. This would allow the planting of larger trees,
and would provide desperately needed open, play area.
Changes be made in the design of the project to provide
reasonable privacy to the adjacent properties. Roof decks be set
back on both the East and West sides to make the sight lines less
acute.
Landscaping be required to provide continuation of
existing screening for entire length of West property line.
The inclusionary units be pleasant, habitable, usable
space, equal in function, if not luxury and size to the condomin-
iums.
The building should meet the set-back limitations at all
levels. cantilever design, or multiple projecting bay ~indows
mock set-back limitations and further encroach upon privacy of
neighbors.
The design should equitably divide the impact of the
structure upon the two adjoining properties. The present design
faces all entries, living areas, stairs, garage access, and
picture windows on the West side.
Lofts be limited in scope so as to discourage use as
essential living areas.
Approval of the present plans will mean that we who live at 1011
H11l will live in a canyon. Our property would serve as the
green belt for the development. I along with other neighbors
have, in a community meeting with the developer, raised our
objections regarding the height, mass, and density of the build-
ing to the developer. I have offered to sell my property to the
developer so it could design a more open structure using two
lots. The developer, however has rejected any consideration of
scaling down his project, or spreading it out onto two lots. The
developer rationalizes his design upon his need for sufficient
profit.
For the sake of additional housing in Santa Monica, we do not
need to accept this project as it is presently planned. I
therefore request you to reject Conditional Use Permit 91-022.
/
ver~;1/trulY yo,;~
~/I./ . ///~
/// (If;f,a
/~('.i;~ f, / W~
F ean Frank's /
'-
~
e
e
FRIENDS Cl
OF SUNSET PARK
A Califorma non-profit corporaJlOn of Sunset Park resuiellls
3324 Pearl Street, San/a Mo,uca. Califorma 90405
President:
Tim MUlphy
Vice-President:
Barbara Brown
Secreto.,,:
Ene Chen
Treasurer:
Jerry Greenwalt
Directors:
Richard Bloom
Jane Dempsey
Peter Donald
John Ezell
Emmahe Hodgm
John Knmm.el
Veromca Pmekard
Ann Salacuse
Russ Shaver
Regula Ziegler
October 27, 19-91
Planning Commission
1685 Main Street
Santa MOnica, CA. 90401
RE: Conditional Use Permit 91-022, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 50652, 1017-1019 Hill Street, R-2
Applicant: Taka Uemura
Dear Commissioners,
The Board of Directors of the Friends of Sunset Park la
neighborhood organization with a membership of over 500
people), after two meetings with neighbors and reviewing plans,
have unanimously voted to oppose thiS project.
The Board feels that the developer must address the neighbors
concerns especially regarding the massive size of the project In
comparison to other bUildings on the street. The proposed
bUIlding is completely out of character with the neighborhood.
It Will cause adverse affects on the neighbors quality of life
regarding, air, light, and privacy (Please note the attached poll
for traffiC mitigation In the Immediate area recently accepted by
the City-Hill St., Ashland Ave., and Pier St. between Lincoln
Blvd. and 11th St. are the R-2 areas represented in thiS poll-the
occupied dwelling unit density currently on HIli St. IS over 250%
more than Pier St., and over 100% more than Ashland Ave.).
We also feel that the proposed landscaping for the project IS
inadequate because so many mature trees Will be lost to the
neighborhood by thiS project.
I have been asked by the Board of Directors to represent them
in thiS matter (I have personally spoken to 89 households on the
street dUring the last SIX months while conducting the attached
poll and at least 80% of these households discussed their
t-t
-\-1 -
- -
e
e
-2-
Opposition of this project with me-there were also households
that mentioned their opposition to me on the west side of the
2600 and 2700 block of 11th St., who had heard about the
project). I have meet with the neighbors formally 10 times
(including 2 meetings with the developers, 2 meetings with the
Board of Friends of Sunset Park, a meeting with two Plannmg
Commissioners, and a meetmg with Susan White regardmg loft
sizes and neighborhood concerns), and had countless telephone
conversations with neighbors about the project.
Due to the facts mentioned above, The Board of Directors of the
Friends of Sunset Park do not support this project.
Please feel free to contact me if any questions arise at 392-
3366.
one attachment
tt-
e e
RESULTS OF POLLING FOR LINCOLN BL/ASHLAND AVE DEVELOPl\1E!'.T
street Vacant DUnit N/H ctcd* No Yes
Hill street
(Lincoln to 11th) 0 106 17 89 6 83
Hill street
(11th to Euclid) 0 20 0 20 3 17
Oak street
-one signature on 11th 2 22 3 19 3 16
St. petition
wilson Place 1 21 0 21 2 19
Sunset Ave./Glenn Ave. 0 24 7 17 2 15
11th Street
(Ocean Park Bl to Hill) 4 60 2 58 5 53
11th Street
(Hill to Marine) 2 40 4 36 2 34
Ashland Ave.
(Lincoln to 11th) 5 50 13 37 0 37
-2 signatures on 11th
Street petition
Ashland Ave.
(11th to Euclid) 0 19 0 19 0 19
-2 signatures on 11th
Street Petition
10th street 0 17 3 14 2 12
Pier Ave. 1 40 14 26 3 23
-1 signture on 11th
street petition
Totals 15 419 63 356 28 328
DUnits is Dwelling Units
ctcd*- contacted in person
No-did not sign for ANY reason (see reasons on street address lists)
Yes- signed
All addresses left flyers 1f N/H (Not Horne) after 6 attempts
Vacant DUnits not counted
tt
e
e
, --
.
9/15/91
Plann~ng ConmlsSlon
Cl~Y of Santa MonIca
L6BS ~.fa~n .:3~reet
San~a MonIca, Ca 90401
-::-'1 'I .
>~
"2 10:7-1J ~l:l st. Townhouse ?rolect
-:::.~.? ::91-022
::-);'l' .':;::-a.,:: ...-3.da
OfNn8~
)23~ ?i3~-:,~ =J~~~sslane~,
h~ a~2 ~rYl~g to do the Inposslble: develop a moderately ?rlced
MultI-reSIdentIal townhOMe proJect that includes--on-slte--]O%
~ow l~COMe affordable rental unIts. We are happy to contrI-
bute affordable rental unlts to the City's stock. Two years ago
~e bUIlt ~ fIve ~n~~ proJect on Bay St. that lrcl~ded O~-Sl~e
one ION ~~~o8e rental. (InCIdentally, the te~ar.~ there =egu-
l3.rly expresses her dlscontent at not beIng allowed LO p~~cn~se
her unIt a~ 3D affordable prIce.)
Lot Coverage
Our orIginal appllcatlon SUbmIttal Included a plan that was 6%
over the ~aXlrnum lot coverage allowed (50%). Although the Staff
Report recommended that our proJect be approved with conditIons,
and the varIance request for 6% extra lot coverage denIed, we
understand at the same tIme that Staff has recornmended--and the
Comm~5sion approved--that precIsely such a variance be allowed
~hen a proJect lncludes on-site the 30% affordable rental house-
Ing as condlt1oned by Proposltlon R.
In any event, after meeting wlth a number of CommissIoners
and hearlng your unencouraging thoughts on such a varlance
~equest, we have SInce eliminated that conditIon, but only at
the unfortunate expense of ellm1nat~ng private/ securIty parkIng
garages down In the common subterranean garage. (It IS our ex-
perlence that these prIvate garages greatly deter vandals, the
nain subterranean gate notwithstandlng.)
50% Unexcavated Front Yard
After our appllcat10n was substantIally complete, a new condl-
A,UO.....f""...-r
If cJC r1 rr I:,...-.,} i
---
T
e
e
tion went lnto effect, that: 50% of the front yard setback
rema2n unexcavated to allow for mature trees. Experts in
landscape design/1nstallation/ma1ntenance will po~nt allover
town to scores of planters on rooftops asnd over garages that
contaln beautIful, mature trees and other plantlngs. (Please
see attached statements.) For our project, we dellberately
selected Suzanne Jett, the same landscape arch1tect selected by
the CIty to deSIgn the City Hall grounds. She has spec1fled a
number of lush but drought ~olerant trees, growIng to heIghts
from 20-30 feet, for our front yard, and has reassured us many
tImes over that, as deSIgned, ~hese trees wIll flourIsh.
If we lose 50% of our garage beneath the f~ont yard, res2dents--
owners and renters allke--w1ll lose much ~eeded storage closets
there IP the garage. And here we come to an 1nportant lssue.
New state Density Bonus Law
In Apr1l of this year Plann~ng 1ssued a memorandum (4/23/90)
expla1n1ng the updated state Density Bonus law, specifIcally:
Bll1 Number: AB 1863, Sec. 2. 65913.4, which states that when a
developer provldes 20% or more of the Inclus~onary affordable
rental unIts the C1ty must provIde a densIty bonUS1 and at least
one or more, of the following regulatory concessions or lncen-
ttves to ensure that the houslng development will be produced at
a red~ced cost:
1) A reductIon In s~te development standards or a modif~-
cation of zoning code requirements or architectural
deSIgn requlrements which exceed the ID1nimum build~ng
standards approved by the state BUIlding Standards
CommissIon. . . inClUding, but not lImited to, a reduc-
tlon 1n setback and square footage requirements and ~n
the ratIO of vehIcular park~ng spaces that would otherw~se
be requIred . . . .
At thIs point we by no means cla~m to understand the full text
of thIS State bill. However, its intent seems to be clear:
1f the c~ty wants a proJect to ~nclude 20% or more affordable
rental un1ts on-site, It should provide some kind of 1ncent~ve,
over and above the required Density Bonus.
We are the first project that proposes to Include 30% afford-
able rental units. WIth respect to our front yard requIrement,
that, againl beca"e a condItIon af~er our applicatlon was sub-
mitted and substantIally complete, we ask that the CommisSlon
please take Into serIOUS conslderation the pr1mary 1ntent of
r
e
e
both the city's own Proposition R and the State Density Bonus
Law, that 15, to orovide more affordable rental hous~na. No in-
l1eu fees, and, no feas1ble development, w11l choke that 1ntent
quite decis~vely.
~l
e
e
1021 Hi 11 Street. 16
Santa Monica, CA 90405
October 28, 1991
- --
"
. ~
Planning Commission
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica. CA 90405
Dear Members of the Commission:
The purpose of this letter is to register my concerns regarding
the condominium project proposed for 1017-1019 Hill Street.
My primary concern IS that the proposed bUilding is totally out
of scale for this neighborhood. The building will consist of
four levels: three stories of living space plus a subterranean
garage. It will be 30 feet high from natural level and have a
flat roof. It will be the only four-level structure in the
neighborhood. and It will be higher than any other building
in the area.
The Justiflcation that the developer uses for proposing a
building that is 43% larger than the Municipal Code al lows is
that the building will contain two inclusionary rental units.
While I and the other conerned parties have not been given an
opportunity to review the current plans for the building, to
the best of our knowledge these units do not meet normal
standards of habitability. For example, In one of these
incluslonary units, the liVing room is twenty feet long but
3 mere nine feet wide on one end and eight feet wide at the
other end. If a standard-size bed were placed in the master
bedroom, there would be virtually no room for any other
furniture. On the second level of this unit, the bedroom
appears to be only seven feet wide, and a bed placed in this
room would block acceSS to the bathroom.
It appears also that the developer is including internal wall
space in order to make up the required 850 square feet of living
s~ace for each of these two lnclusionary units.
The proposed structure, because of its height. would completely
overshadow the two-story, 7-unit building in which I live. It
would have a most deleterious effect on the quality of life of
all of the residents in terms of diminished air-t low. sunl ight,
view and privacy.
[ trust the Commlssion wil I take these factors into consideration
when asked to approve the construction of the proposed building.
Wlth Best Regards.
~/ .:..~ ~-...--
/'" / /'-
//'- ....--C~L/
-- ~ ~
Maxwel I S. Stratton
4
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
To:
Concerned Persons
From:
The City of Santa Monica
subject of Hearing: Appeal of a Planning commission Denial of
Conditional Use Permit 91-022 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 50656 for a two story,
six unit condominium with two inclusionary
rental units on a 8,360 square foot parcel
in the R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential)
District.
Address: 1017-1019 Hill street
Applicant: Taka Uemura
Appellant: Grant Wada for Taka Uemura
A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the
following request:
TIME:
TUESDAY,
January 14
, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION:
COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and
other projects. You or your representative, or any other persons
may comment at the City Council's public hearing, or by writing a
letter.
Letters should be addressed to:
city council, City Clerk's Office
1685 Main street, Room 102
Santa Monica, California 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If desired, further information on any application may be
obtained from the city Planning Division at the address above or
by calling (310) 458-8341.
The meeting facility is handicapped accessible. If you have any
special needs such as sign language interpreting, please contact
the Office of the Disabled at (310) 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 65009(b), if this
matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be
limited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearing
- 1 -
v
~
~
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
Esto es un aviso sobre
applicaciones proponiendo
ser de interes a usted.
llamar a Elsa Gonzalez en
(310) 458-8341.
PCWORDjtempccpn
pcjnhill
smV'
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D. KENYON WEBSTER
Principal Planner
una audencia publica para revisar
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Esto puedo
Si deseas mas informacion, favor de
la Division de Plantificacion al numero
- 2 -
..
January 7, 1992
Attention: Susan White
Plannlng Dept.
city of Santa Monica
1685 Main st.
Santa Mon~ca, Ca 90407-2200
Re: 1017-19 Hill St. Townhomes
8 Units (including 2 affordable rentals)
Dear Susan,
We have made the following changes to our project that we feel
substantially reduce the "massing" atop the loft level and lower
the line-of-site from the street and sides. These changes go
beyond what is specified by the present Zoning Ordinance, the
especially restrictive Prop. R Interim Ordinance, and other
recent rulings and design directives by the city Council vis-a-
vis comparable townhome projects in mixed R-2 neighborhoods:
--The front of the building has been entirely redesigned to
visually bring down the rise of this elevation.
--The front and central domed turret has been removed.
--The front loft has been completely removed.
The loft level is now set back over 13' from building edge
ln the front (33' from property line), 17' from building
edge on the west (24' from property line), 11' from build-
ing edge on the east (20.5' from property line) and 6' from
building edge at the rear (19' from property line).
--The roofing that is furthest forward has been rounded,
splayed and opened into a graceful pergola that continues
forward in a downward slope, further lightening and soft-
ening the first visible element above the second story.
The same treatment has been applied to the rear roof.
(The rear of the building is cut back 13' from the proper-
ty llne, allowing for an enclosed, landscaped, community
play yard.)
I
, .
--The all-glass wall of the first visible stair-well housing
has been angled back toward the center, further lowering the
line-at-site.
(See attached diagram "A." High points of loft space not
seen until 65' away, or past center 11ne of street. Note:
line-ot-site analysis considers standing 5'lOn person, and
averages distances as one passes building on Hill st..
Lofts would remain invisible to persons driving by in cars.
Analysis does not take into account adjacent buildings and
existing or proposed trees, which substantially push back
distances.)
--All other stair-well housings have been cut down and angled
back toward the center, rendering them virtually invisible
until they connect with the lofts proper.
(The entire loft level is deeply saw-toothed, notched and
cut out--behind open deck and walkway space--to reduce
massing, in addition to being set back and away from the
deck parapet walls, which are themselves set back at least
three teet from the buildlng perimeter. See attached
diagram ItB".)
--Pitched roof high points have been reduced from eight--one
over each unit--to four, by placing one pitch over every
two unlts.
--The utility closet at the rear corner has been pushed back
further toward the center so that no plane of the building
rises to the roof.